"If you think they’re all rapists,why would you shag them?"he said.

Senator Hanson-Young denied suggesting all men are rapists,and Justice White found Senator Hanson-Young did not make that claim.

Justice White said it was likely Mr Leyonhjelm heard what he was"predisposed to hear"because he had a pre-existing view Senator Hanson-Young was a person who made"collectivist"statements about men. He said he did not accept that at the time of the Senate debate"ordinary reasonable people"would have viewed the Greens senator as a person who made"sweeping,collectivist statements about men".

The Greens senator said Mr Leyonhjelm's comments amounted to"slut-shaming",but told the Federal Court she did not sue him on this basis because"it's not defamatory to suggest that a woman has had sex with more than one man".

Instead,she claimed Mr Leyonhjelm defamed her by suggesting she made the"absurd"comment that"all men are rapists".

She also claimed he branded her a"hypocrite",in that she"claimed that all men are rapists but nevertheless had sexual relations with them";and a"misandrist,in that she publicly claimed that all men are rapists".

Justice White found each of those defamatory imputations was conveyed by Mr Leyonhjelm and he had not established a defence of truth or qualified privilege.

But he said Senator Hanson-Young was not entitled to damages for any harm resulting from a potential"promiscuity imputation"on which she had elected not to sue.

While the Greens senator did not sue over remarks uttered in the Senate,Mr Leyonhjelm's lawyers argued the case amounted to a breach of parliamentary privilege because it required an examination of words spoken by Senator Hanson-Young in the chamber. Justice White rejected that argument.

Mr Leyonhjelm's barrister,Tony Morris,QC,told the court that when politicians say"unpleasant things about[one] another"it has"no impact on reputation if it is said by someone who is seen by the public to be in an enemy camp".

Justice White said he took into account the fact that both Senator Hanson-Young and Mr Leyonhjelm"participated in the rough and tumble of politics",but said the comments were made"persistently"and would have caused people to think less of the Greens senator.

The $120,000 figure included aggravated damages. Justice White said the circumstances of aggravation included Mr Leyonhjelm's refusal to apologise and a series of"belittling"comments he made after his media interviews,including a tweet on July 3 last year accusing Senator Hanson-Young of acting with"cowardice"in"playing the female victim card".

Senator Hanson-Young's barrister,Sue Chrysanthou,said she would argue for indemnity costs to be awarded,which are higher than the costs usually awarded to a successful party in litigation.

The parties return to court on December 17.