Network Ten has suggested Bruce Lehrmann leaked more than 2300 pages of “most intimate private messages” between Brittany Higgins and her former boyfriend, in breach of a court undertaking.

The salvo was launched amid the broadcaster’s extraordinary eleventh hour bid to reopen its defamation lawsuit with Mr Lehrmann hours out from judgment on Thursday morning.

Ten asked to submit fresh evidence from a television producer who had worked to secure an exclusive interview with Mr Lehrmann for network rival Seven.

It included an allegation that Mr Lehrmann, 28, provided the producer more than 2300 pages of “deeply personal exchanges” between Ms Higgins and her former boyfriend, in breach of the longstanding rule in legal practice known as the Harman undertaking.

Mr Lehrmann received the material, going back years, while defending himself in a criminal trial.

Ten’s barrister said it was a crucial matter going to the former political staffer’s creditability.

“This evidence is a matter that is capable of affecting the result because it would rationally affect Your Honour’s assessment of the appropriate damages,” Matt Collins told Justice Michael Lee on Tuesday evening.

Dr Collins further accused Mr Lehrmann of giving his barristers instructions “that must have been wrong”.

His barristers had previously told Ten and the court the undertaking concerning Ms Higgins’ messages had not been breached.

“This is not a trivial matter,” Dr Collins said.

“If the (producer) evidence is accepted, our submission will be it’s a very serious matter.”

Mr Lehrmann, a former political staffer, is suing Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over a February 2021 report on The Project where Brittany Higgins was interviewed about her alleged raped in a Parliament House office in March 2019.

He is seeking extensive damages, saying those reports have destroyed his reputation.

Mr Lehrmann denies raping Ms Higgins.

His barrister on Tuesday urged Justice Lee to dismiss the last-minute application, saying both his client and Ms Higgins had told many lies on oath.

“It’s really lipstick on a pig,” barrister Matthew Richardson said.

“This stuff is trivial, it’s just not relevant and to give leave to reopen on that sort of material would be inappropriate.”

If accepted, the new evidence will likely delay the judgment substantially.

The hearing continues.

This post was originally published on Michael West.