A Western Australia Supreme Court judge has ordered former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins to pay 80 percent of former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds’ legal costs after finding three social media posts about Reynolds were defamatory, a decision that could leave Higgins and her husband facing crippling bills.
In a written reasons published Tuesday, Justice Paul Tottle upheld Reynolds’ defamation claim and awarded her A$315,000 in damages plus about A$26,000 in interest, while ordering Higgins to meet the bulk of Reynolds’ legal expenses. The judge said the costs order could push Higgins’ liabilities beyond A$1 million once legal fees are tallied.
Justice Tottle’s ruling also disclosed that, four days before a six-week defamation trial began in September, Higgins had through her lawyers made a proposed confidential settlement offering that would have seen her parents pay A$200,000 and Higgins borrow A$10,000 to donate to a women’s charity. The draft mutual statement accompanying the offer did not contain an apology but said both parties were genuine in their respective beliefs and agreed to put matters behind them. Reynolds rejected the proposal and proceeded to trial.
The judge criticized the settlement attempt in a five-point assessment, saying it failed to provide Reynolds “with any vindication of her reputation” and “fell short of an apology by a substantial margin.” He concluded that Higgins’ failure to make a reasonable settlement offer was itself unreasonable, noting that Higgins had been represented by experienced lawyers from the outset of the dispute.
The court found three separate posts at issue carried defamatory imputations. A tweet of Jan. 27, 2022, was found to convey that Reynolds had pressured Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint of sexual assault and that Reynolds was hypocritical in her advocacy for gender equality; the judge rejected Higgins’ defences of truth and other claims and awarded A$135,000 for that post, including aggravated damages. A second post on Instagram on July 4, 2023, was found to convey imputations that Reynolds had engaged in harassment, mishandled a rape allegation and conducted herself questionably during the trial of Bruce Lehrmann; the court awarded A$180,000 for that post. A third set of tweets on July 20, 2023, were found to be protected by defences including honest opinion, fair comment and qualified privilege.
Higgins’ husband, David Sharaz, was also a defendant in the case. The judgment rejected Reynolds’ separate claims that Higgins and Sharaz had engaged in a conspiracy to injure her.
The ruling follows a high-profile, five-week trial that received intense media and political attention and forms part of a wider saga stemming from Higgins’ allegation that she was raped in Parliament House in March 2019 by then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann. A Federal Court judge later found, on the balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann raped Higgins; Lehrmann denies the allegations and is appealing that finding. His criminal trial was halted amid juror misconduct.
Higgins told news.com.au she accepted the judgment and said she wanted to "rebuild" her life. She was not in court when Justice Tottle handed down the costs order. Her lawyer told the court during the trial that Higgins’ motive in speaking out was to drive workplace reforms and protect others, and that the contested posts were true or honest opinion and protected by privilege. The judge accepted those defences in relation to only one of the three posts.
Reynolds, who attended court for the judgment, said the ruling was “a great relief.” In the judgment she said she had been the subject of a “dishonest and devastating attack...based on very curated lies,” and that the case was about her reputation rather than money. Media reporting said Reynolds had re-mortgaged her home to fund the litigation.
The judgment also touches on earlier controversy surrounding a A$2.4 million Commonwealth compensation payment Higgins received in December 2022 after alleging bullying and victimisation related to her complaint. That payment led to a complaint to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which in a preliminary report said there was “no corruption issue” with the settlement and described the mediation outcome as unexceptional. Reynolds has pursued separate legal action against the Commonwealth, alleging conflicts by government lawyers in handling the settlement.
Justice Tottle’s full ruling spans some 360 pages and includes detailed findings on the content and character of the contested posts, the credibility of witnesses and the reasonableness of conduct by both parties and their legal teams. The judge considered submissions about the scope of recoverable costs, including claims by Reynolds’ legal team for uncapped fees and multiple instructing solicitors; the costs order published on Tuesday requires Higgins to pay the lion’s share of Reynolds’ legal expenses.
The financial impact of the judgment is likely to be significant for Higgins and Sharaz. Media reports say Higgins has limited personal assets and that part of the A$2.4 million settlement is held in a trust. The couple previously sold a property in France amid mounting legal costs.
It is not yet clear whether Higgins will appeal the defamation judgment or the costs order. Justice Tottle’s decisions, and any future appeals, will determine the final financial and legal consequences for the parties involved.