Linda Reynolds’ court win over Brittany Higgins as former political staffer is ordered to reveal secret detail in $2.4million settlement

Senator Linda Reynolds has won her defamation case against Brittany Higgins. The Western Australian Supreme Court forced Ms Higgins to reveal who was responsible for implementing her $2.4 million settlement with the Commonwealth.

Senator Reynolds brought the case against Ms Higgins as part of her defamation lawsuit against her former co-worker.

The senator is seeking damages for social media posts she and her husband David Sharaz made, which the senator says damaged her reputation.

Talks to resolve the case have failed. The court heard on Wednesday that Senator Reynolds will review a copy of the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust to determine who the trustee is, should the proceedings go in her favour.

The court heard that Ms Higgins set up the trust the day after she signed a deed of settlement with the Commonwealth of Australia in December 2022.

The settlement was part of a personal injury claim brought by Ms Higgins following allegations that she was sexually assaulted by her colleague Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House.

Ms Higgins was awarded $2.4 million in damages as part of that claim.

Martin Bennett, Senator Reynold’s lawyer, told the court the trust was set up to protect Ms Higgins from potential future creditors, including his client.

The senator is seeking damages for social media posts made by Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz, which the senator claims have damaged her reputation

He said an article published in Daily Mail Australia on August 21, 2023, reported that Ms Higgins was close to running out of money when she received a “$3 million lifeline”.

He said it was easy to conclude that the trust had been set up to protect Mrs Higgins from creditors, when someone had declared themselves poor and then received a financial lifeline placed in a protective trust.

He said Ms Higgins must have been aware of the potential future action against her because of the untruths she allegedly told the Commonwealth in her personal injury claim.

“You don’t have to be a creditor, it can also be a future creditor, that is completely covered by the law,” he said.

Mr Bennett also told the court that Senator Reynolds had filed a complaint with the National Anti-Corruption Commission over the compensation paid to Ms Higgins.

He said the senator had told the committee the money should be returned to the Commonwealth and that she wanted a ruling made against the people who approved the “extraordinarily rapid payment”.

The court heard that Ms Reynolds was excluded from the mediation discussions which resulted in Ms Higgins receiving compensation in December 2022.

Mr Bennett told the court that the Commonwealth had taken over the proceedings and refused to allow Senator Reynolds to attend the mediation or to defend himself.

He said the commission should investigate the conduct of Labour Ministers Katy Gallagher and Mark Dreyfus and the way they handled the compensation payments.

Linda Reynolds’ attorney Martin Bennett. Photo: NewsWire / Sharon Smith

Rachel Young SC, representing Ms Higgins, argued that the senator’s actions were based on speculation and that there was no intention to defraud creditors.

Ms Young said the fund was established on December 14, 2023, to manage the proceeds of the Commonwealth payment, and not as suggested in the media articles.

Ms Young argued that the senator’s claims that the trust was set up to protect Ms Higgins from other creditors, such as the Commonwealth, Penguin Random House and Bruce Lehrmann, were also speculation, as no other claims had been made against her client.

She said the senator’s argument that she was a future creditor was baseless and that there was no evidence other than speculation.

“She relies on the fact that she started action against Mr Sharaz in January 2023, so what,” she said.

‘She then relies on her defamation action against Brittany Higgins, the publications to which the complaint relates date from at least July 4, 2023.

“It is not unimportant to consider the time at which the intent was formed. How can an intent to defraud Senator Reynolds be formed when there have not even been any publications?”

Ms Young also argued that since no findings had been made in the defamation case, it was premature to obtain a copy of the trust.

She said it was assumed the senator’s defamation action would be successful and, if so, proceedings had been instituted.

“This is an attempt to obtain a document that will allow a case to be brought that was brought prematurely and may never be heard,” she said.

In his ruling, Chief Justice Damien Quinlan said that Ms Higgins owed Senator Reynolds at least compensation for costs, which would only be due at the end of the defamation proceedings.

He ordered a pre-trial investigation that allowed Senator Reynolds to obtain a copy of the trust fund, but this copy was to remain confidential between the senator and her attorney.

Outside the courtroom, Mr Bennett said it was a good outcome for his client, who was facing a very expensive legal battle.