Brittany Higgins' lawyers sent a last-minute settlement offer to former Liberal staffer Linda Reynolds four days before their defamation trial that included a confidential payment by Higgins' parents and a mutual statement of regret that contained no apology, new Western Australian Supreme Court documents show.
The five-page letter, dated July 29, 2024, and sent by Perth solicitor Carmel Galati on instructions from lead lawyer Leon Zwier, warned Reynolds that she "will never restore her reputation by suing a staffer raped in her office," and urged Reynolds' legal team to accept the proposed deal. Reynolds rejected the offer within 29 minutes, and a judge later found the proposal unreasonable, ordering Higgins to pay about 80% of Reynolds' legal costs in addition to A$340,000 in damages that had already been awarded to Reynolds.
Galati's letter acknowledged difficulty obtaining instructions from Higgins and said Higgins remained "immovable" about her views of the traumatic events surrounding her rape and its immediate aftermath. The settlement package offered by Higgins' legal team proposed that Higgins' parents pay A$200,000 toward Reynolds' costs, plus A$10,000 to a women's refuge or charity. It also included a 160-word "statement of mutual regret" that the defence said would allow both parties to "put these matters behind them and move on."
The court documents show Reynolds' lawyers insisted any compensation must come directly from Higgins and not her family. Higgins' lawyers rejected that insistence as "unreasonable," and the proposed settlement included a confidentiality requirement that would have allowed Higgins to disclose the fact and amount of the payment if incorrect details of the settlement were published.
Reynolds' lawyer Martin Bennett declined the offer as "unreasonable" under the Defamation Act, telling Galati the proposal offered no vindication of Reynolds' reputation and that the contribution to costs was inadequate given the lateness of the offer. Galati amended the letter and asked Bennett to reconsider, but he again refused.
Justice Paul Tottle later published a detailed costs ruling that echoed Bennett's objections. The judge found the settlement offered no vindication of Reynolds' reputation, said the proposed statement "fell short of an apology by a substantial margin," and concluded that the confidentiality clause would have allowed the defendant to assert she had not paid any money to Reynolds in settlement. He also noted the offer included no compensation from Higgins herself and came only four days before trial, after Reynolds had already incurred trial preparation costs.
Justice Tottle described the offer as "unreasonable," and criticised the advice Higgins received during the dispute, noting that while Higgins' trial team had been retained shortly before the trial, she had been represented by experienced lawyers from the earliest stages of the case.
The decision follows a trial in which Justice Tottle found that Higgins and her husband, David Sharaz, defamed Reynolds in several social media posts and awarded Reynolds A$340,000 in damages. The judge's costs order, published this week, allocates about 80% of Reynolds' legal costs to Higgins and anticipates those costs will exceed A$1 million.
Galati's letter also attempted to undercut a potential source of recovery by telling Reynolds' team that a A$2.4 million compensation payment previously made to Higgins by the Commonwealth in 2022 for bullying and victimisation was not available to satisfy any judgment against Higgins. The letter warned that Reynolds could expect continuing adverse publicity on social media and argued the defence would succeed at trial.
In his costs ruling, Justice Tottle considered five principal reasons the offer was deficient: lack of reputational vindication, absence of an apology, the problematic confidentiality reservation, no offer of compensation by Higgins, and the late timing of the proposal. The judge noted the proposed A$200,000 was effectively only a contribution toward costs and would not have vindicated Reynolds.
The documents add to the record of the contentious pre-trial negotiations in a case that has drawn intense public attention and debate about workplace conduct, media commentary and the legal avenues available to public figures. They also highlight the risks defendants face when settlement positions are advanced shortly before trial and when proposed terms do not directly address a plaintiff's demand for reputational redress.
Reynolds' lawyer said at the time of rejection that his client had been forced to incur legal costs while Higgins had been largely represented on a pro bono basis. The published orders make clear the court considered those cost disparities, the timing of the offer and the substance of the proposed statement in reaching its conclusion that the settlement was unreasonable.
Higgins has previously publicly acknowledged she received an apology to Reynolds and to former chief of staff Fiona Brown for any "hurt and distress" in earlier exchanges, but the mutual statement in the July 29 offer referenced that prior apology rather than containing a fresh apology itself, a factor Justice Tottle cited in finding the offer inadequate.
The ruling requires Higgins to meet the majority of Reynolds' legal costs, reinforcing the court's finding that the settlement proposal fell short of providing the vindication and redress the plaintiff sought.