Kerry Stokes to pay Nine's court costs for Ben Roberts-Smith ...

Seven West Media chair Kerry Stokes will pay a high percentage of the legal bill for Nine Newspapers after its successful defence of a defamation lawsuit brought by war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith.

Key points:Ben Roberts-Smith's lawsuit against Nine was dismissed in JuneThe Federal Court ruled last month he should pay costs on an indemnity basisKerry Stokes has financially supported the war veteran, and will pay a high proportion of Nine's legal bill

Orders made in the Federal Court on Monday confirmed Mr Stokes's private company, Australian Capital Equity Pty Ltd (ACE), will pay Nine's costs on an indemnity basis.

It means billionaire Mr Stokes, who the court heard has financially supported Mr Roberts-Smith, through his company ACE, will have to pay millions of dollars to his media rival Nine.

One of the journalists involved in the case, investigative reporter Chris Masters, has previously estimated it cost $30 million to defend the lawsuit.

Victoria Cross recipient Mr Roberts-Smith sued three newspapers – the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Canberra Times — and two journalists over stories reporting allegations he committed war crimes while deployed in Afghanistan.

In June, following a lengthy trial, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed the case and found allegations including murder had been proven on the balance of probabilities – which is the civil standard.

Mr Roberts-Smith, a former executive at Seven Queensland, maintains his innocence and has lodged an appeal against Justice Besanko's judgement.

Nine's lawyers successfully argued its costs should be repaid by Mr Roberts-Smith and his backers on an indemnity basis for the entirety of the proceedings, which began in 2018.

Indemnity costs compensate a party for a higher proportion of its total legal bill than what it more commonly awarded by a court.

Justice Besanko in November ruled Mr Roberts-Smith should pay costs on an indemnity basis as he knew "the substantial truth" of the key allegations before launching his lawsuit.

"Furthermore, [Mr Roberts-Smith's] submissions that he has not engaged in any conduct which has prolonged the proceedings fails to recognise the fundamental point that he knew from the commencement of the proceedings that the most serious imputations were substantially true," he said.

The case will return to court on Tuesday.