Former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann is planning to challenge findings made against him in the Federal Court on the grounds he was denied procedural fairness, attacking Justice Michael Lee's approach to Network Ten's truth defence.

Mr Lehrmann has lodged an appeal against findings he did, on the balance of probabilities, rape Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019.

The findings meant his bid to sue Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation failed, because they had proved their truth defence.

The notice of appeal filed with the Federal Court states the documents were prepared by Mr Lehrmann himself.

Mr Lehrmann launched the defamation action after his criminal trial for the alleged rape was abandoned with no findings against him. He has always maintained his innocence.

He had sought the damages over an interview on The Project, in which Ms Higgins alleged she had been raped by a then-colleague in the office of Senator Linda Reynolds, although Mr Lehrmann was not named in the story.

The notice to appeal his failed defamation action claims the finding of a truth defence was contrary to the evidence and did not reach the standard of proof required by a trial judge.

The notice also took aim at Network Ten and Ms Higgins.

"A full review of the evidence and the findings by the trial judge together with significant credibility problems of the first respondent's primary witness would satisfy the Court of Appeal … [that] relevant provisions of the Evidence Act have been misdirected," the notice said.

The notice also pointed to the differences in the account of the incident suggested by The Project interview and the description in the recent judgment.

"The broadcast suggests a violent rape, where the complainant was in tears and repeatedly refused consent, of which repeated refusal the perpetrator must have been aware," the notice said.

"This is contrary to the non-violent rape involving inadvertent recklessness as to consent which was ultimately found in the judgement made by the trial judge."

The notice also complains about the way costs were allocated, and asks that if the appeal is allowed any judge other than Justice Lee be appointed to assess the amounts.

There is still no date for the matter.