A Western Australia Supreme Court judge has ordered Brittany Higgins to pay 80 percent of the legal costs incurred by her former boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, in a five‑week defamation trial, after rejecting a last‑minute settlement offer the judge described as "unreasonable." The full cost figure is unknown; Reynolds has said she spent "millions" on the case, and Justice Paul Tottle previously awarded her $340,000 in damages.
Justice Tottle published a costs order on Tuesday and set out detailed reasons for finding Higgins's settlement attempt inadequate. Four days before the trial began, Higgins's lawyers proposed a confidential payment of $200,000 to be made by her parents and a 160‑word "statement of mutual regret." The offer also included a $10,000 donation to a women's refuge or charity, again to be paid by Higgins's family. Senator Reynolds rejected the proposal in mediation because the statement contained no direct apology.
In his ruling, Justice Tottle set out five reasons why the settlement fell short. He said the statement provided no vindication of Reynolds's reputation and "fell short of an apology by a substantial margin," describing the text as conveying an agreement to disagree. The judge also criticised a confidentiality provision that would have allowed Higgins to deny making any payment if inaccurate settlement details were published, and noted there was no meaningful offer of compensation. Finally, he said the timing—only days before trial after Reynolds had prepared for trial—made the offer unreasonable.
Higgins's lawyers had described the proposed $200,000 as a "material contribution" to Reynolds's legal costs and resisted Reynolds's insistence that any compensation be paid by Higgins personally rather than by her family. They sought to keep the fact and sum of any payment confidential, reserving the right to disclose payment details if incorrect information about the settlement were published.
Justice Tottle said that reservation would have enabled the defendant to assert she had paid nothing in settlement and emphasised that the reference to a prior apology accentuated the absence of an apology in the joint wording. Excerpts of the proposed statement acknowledged that the proceedings had caused "significant additional distress and hurt" and that the parties "agree to put these matters behind them and move on," but did not include an explicit apology from Higgins.
Higgins faces a substantial financial burden as a result of the costs order and the damages awarded to Reynolds. Higgins received a $2.4 million compensation payout from the Commonwealth in 2022 related to the underlying events, but reports indicate that money is now held in a trust. It emerged during the trial that Higgins has limited personal assets, with court evidence indicating about $10,000 in assets. Reynolds's legal team may need to pursue further court action to seek access to funds held in trust.
The defamation trial examined social media posts and public statements made after an alleged sexual assault in March 2019 and the responses of staff in Reynolds's office. Justice Tottle noted that Higgins had been represented by experienced lawyers from early in the dispute, and was critical of the decision to present such a limited settlement proposal so close to trial.
Reynolds has characterised her victory as vindication. The costs order increases the financial consequences for Higgins and her family, though the final amount Higgins must pay will depend on the total legal bills Reynolds incurred and any subsequent enforcement proceedings to access funds. The WA Supreme Court's decision provides a detailed judicial assessment of settlement conduct and the standards expected of offers made in the context of litigation.