Justice Michael Lee read out his finding, months in the making, from the Federal Court on Monday morning.

"Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins," he said, stressing the decision was made on the civil standard of proof.

Tens of thousands of people flocked to the court's YouTube live stream to hear the words and learn Mr Lehrmann's fate.

Many more thousand tuned in last year to watch a month-long civil trial after Mr Lehrmann sued Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson. He claimed being defamed by a 2021 interview, which aired the rape allegation.

Ten and Ms Wilkinson won on a substantial truth defence. They were able to prove it was more likely than not the rape took place.

"I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann's state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins' consent and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented," the judge said.

That conclusion, Justice Lee said, is consistent with his finding that intercourse started when Ms Higgins was "not fully cognitively aware of what was happening".

From the witness box, Mr Lehrmann repeatedly denied having any sexual interest in Ms Higgins, being intimate with her earlier in the night, or trying to get his colleague drunk.

On Monday, the court made scathing findings against all those claims and said Mr Lehrmann brought Ms Higgins back to Parliament House to do something "not exactly shrouded in mystery".

Mr Lehrmann was "hell-bent on having sex" with a woman he found attractive, had kissed that same night, had earlier encouraged to drink, and he knew had reduced inhibitions due to her intoxication.

"In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on," Justice Lee said.

Crucially, the judge ruled Ms Higgins did not give consent and Mr Lehrmann was reckless in his indifference to consent on Senator Linda Reynold's ministerial office couch.

Justice Lee said Mr Lehrmann still had not been found guilty of rape to a criminal standard after his ACT trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.

But he had now been found, by the civil standard of proof, being the balance of probabilities, "to have engaged in a great wrong".

"Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat," the judge said.

As a result, Justice Lee said, Mr Lehrmann is "not entitled to the vindication of his reputation".

It is open to Mr Lehrmann to appeal the decision.

"To remark that Mr Lehrmann is a poor witness is an exercise in understatement," the judge said.

"His attachment to the truth was a tenuous one, informed not by faithfulness to his affirmation but by fashioning his responses in what he perceived to be his forensic interests."

Justice Lee has never hidden his feelings about the credibility of the case's principal witnesses.

"This is a credit case involving two people who are both, in different ways, unreliable historians," he said early in his judgment.

"Only one man and one woman know the truth with certitude."

The judge has numerous times questioned the reliability of the former Liberal staffer colleagues and did so again on Monday, calling Mr Lehrmann's untruths "all over the shop".

"I do not think Mr Lehrmann is a compulsive liar, and some of the untruths he told during his evidence may sometimes have been due to carelessness and confusion," the judge said.

"But I am satisfied that in important respects he told deliberate lies."

Justice Lee gave numerous examples of Mr Lehrmann's "false statements" during the civil trial, including suggesting his attraction to Ms Higgins was the same as to anyone in the room.

"[This answer] was as disconcerting as it was unconvincing," the judge said.

The judge said "Mr Lehrmann gave false evidence about a litany of other matters", including not spending time with Ms Higgins earlier in the night and being reprimanded about a classified document security breach at work.

Justice Lee also made several findings about Ms Higgins and her credit, describing her as a "complex and, in several respects, unsatisfactory witness".

"It is necessary to assess the credit of Ms Higgins circumspectly," he said.

"She is someone who has the intense, uncritical support of some but has also been the subject of widespread social media abuse."

The judge said submissions he could not rely on any of Ms Higgins' evidence because she had been so discredited by post-incident representations were too "simplistic".

"Given the potential effects of trauma", the judge said about evidence to police or her ex-boyfriend after the incident, he could not find the conduct "is necessarily inconsistent with a victim of sexual assault seeking to process what had occurred".

However, Justice Lee said Ms Higgins' conduct in the years following were far more troubling.

"The most important aspect of this later conduct, commencing in early 2021, was the way in which Ms Higgins crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks," he said.

"And forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint."

This allegation was a key part of the Ten broadcast at the centre of proceedings and Ms Wilkinson was intensely cross-examined on its validity.

While the defence of substantial truth got Ten and Ms Wilkinson over the line, they failed in their qualified privilege defence.

"The conduct of Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson in publishing the matter in its character of conveying the defamatory imputations of rape fell short on the standard of reasonableness," the judge said.

Justice Lee cited a number of reasons why Ten did not act reasonably in its research, production and publication of Ms Higgins' allegation.

They included airing the claim of a systemic cover-up despite "strong indications of the unreliability of their main source" and implausible explanations about why selected material survived a phone wipe.

MORE DEFAMATION TRIAL COVERAGE:

The judge also said Ms Wilkinson and producer Angus Llewellyn did not sufficiently investigate a key photograph of Ms Higgins' bruised leg, which she claimed was caused by Mr Lehrmann.

Metadata did not show when the photo was taken and Ms Higgins later had to admit she couldn't definitively say Mr Lehrmann had caused the bruise.

"The lack of curiosity about investigating the bruise photograph is especially unreasonable given its subjective and objective importance and given it was said to viewers to be physical evidence corroborating Ms Higgins' rape allegation," Justice Lee said.

Outside the Federal Court, Ms Wilkinson thanked her supporters after Justice Lee handed down his decision.

"I sincerely hope that this judgment gives strength to women around the country," she said.

The veteran journalist thanked her "independent legal team" led by Sue Chrysanthou SC. Ms Wilkinson won a legal battle against Ten for the costs of hiring Ms Chrysanthou.

"Throughout every step of this process, I have been surrounded by the love of my wonderful family, as well as incredibly supportive friends and colleagues. I can never thank them enough," she said.

"I also want to say how grateful I am to all the generous members of the public who have approached me almost every single day to express, often through tears, their unwavering support."

Justice Lee's finding does not amount to a conviction. The judge deferred the issue of legal costs in the case.