A Western Australia Supreme Court judge has ruled that David Sharaz, husband of former senator Brittany Higgins, must pay Linda Reynolds more than half a million dollars over social media posts alleging a government “cover-up.” Justice Paul Tottle delivered the decision on Thursday, ordering Sharaz to pay Reynolds $92,000 in damages plus Reynolds’ legal costs that could reach $500,000, for posts published in 2022 and 2023. Sharaz is also found jointly liable with his wife to pay $135,000 in damages over another post they shared together, the court said.
In a separate ruling within the same case, Higgins herself was ordered to pay Reynolds $315,000 in damages plus $26,000 in interest, and to cover about 80 percent of her own legal fees. When combined with Higgins’ other costs, the tally runs to an estimated $2 million. Higgins’ lawyers accepted a bankruptcy notice served by Reynolds’ lawyers, The Australian reported, but Higgins also lodged an appeal on the defamation ruling, meaning bankruptcy proceedings are on hold until the appeal is resolved.
The court found the posts alleged a “cover-up” by Reynolds that had no basis in fact. One post said, “I’m aghast that despite everything you put a staffer through you’re still a minister.” Another read, “Linda, I see you,” which Justice Tottle said appeared intended to intimidate Reynolds, while a third comment expressed support for Reynolds being jailed. The judge emphasized there was no factual foundation for the accusations made in these posts, and the statements harmed Reynolds’ reputation.
The damages arise amid a broader, high-profile chapter in Australian public life. Higgins previously received a $2.4 million payout from the Commonwealth as part of an out‑of‑court settlement over the handling of her 2019 rape allegation against former senator Bruce Lehrmann. In the months after that settlement, Higgins established the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust, declaring an ABN to hold the proceeds. Reynolds sought access to those funds in the defamation case, arguing they could be used to meet potential judgments. Public records showed the trust’s ABN was cancelled a few months before Reynolds won the suit, and Higgins told the court she had only about $10,000 on hand. Supreme Court Chief Justice Peter Quinlan declined to rule on Higgins’ intentions in setting up the trust, but he agreed Reynolds’ application to set it aside was the “only way” she might recover any sum owed.
It remains unclear how much of the $2.4 million payout Higgins has actually retained, as she has since traveled and spent on personal expenditures, including a wedding and real estate purchases, while the legal process continued. Reynolds’ counsel has said the former senator was heavily mortgaged to fund her legal costs, with court filings indicating the total legal bill exceeded $1 million. In a judgment released last month, prosecutors revealed Higgins had proposed settling the matter for a $200,000 contribution toward Reynolds’ legal fees, funded by her parents. Justice Tottle described that offer as “unreasonable” and noted it required both sides to issue statements of mutual regret and Reynolds to donate $10,000 to a women’s charity or refuge.
The defamation dispute is only one facet of a multi‑year legal saga surrounding Higgins. Lehrmann, the former colleague at the center of her 2019 rape allegation, faced a criminal case that was abandoned after juror misconduct; he later lost a defamation case against Network 10 and presenter Lisa Wilkinson. Reynolds continues to pursue separate legal action against the federal government over the settlement awarded to Higgins, arguing that the government breached its duty to act in Higgins’ best interests.
Requests for comment from Higgins were forwarded to her representatives via the Daily Mail, which reported that Higgins’ camp had not publicly responded to the ruling at the time of publication. The case highlights how social media activity by public figures and their spouses can trigger costly legal battles, with significant financial and reputational consequences extending beyond the courtroom.