Court orders Brittany Higgins to pay 80pc of Linda Reynolds’ costs
The former Liberal staffer offered to issue a ‘mutual statement of regret’ that would have seen Linda Reynolds acknowledge Ms Higgins believed she was not given adequate support after being raped | READ THE STATEMENT
Brittany Higgins is likely to pay about $1.5m towards Linda Reynolds’ legal costs from their defamation dispute, the WA Supreme Court has ruled, in a judgment that reveals the ex-Liberal staffer offered her former boss $200,000 and to issue a “mutual statement of regret” to end the matter before it went to trial.
Judge Paul Tottle on Tuesday ruled Ms Higgins should pay 80 per cent of Ms Reynolds’ bills from the former Liberal senator’s successful defamation case, and found an early settlement offer – tabled just four days before the trial was scheduled to begin – could not be considered reasonable.
The offer included a “mutual statement of regret” that would have led to Ms Reynolds acknowledging Ms Higgins believed she was not given appropriate support after being raped in Parliament House.
While the total legal costs incurred by Ms Reynolds in bringing the defamation action are unknown, she said publicly in the wake of last month’s win that she had spent “millions” on the matter.
That would suggest Ms Higgins will be liable for at least $1.5m in costs, as well as the $340,000 in damages and interest awarded to Ms Reynolds as a result of Justice Tottle’s earlier defamation decision.
The costs decision revealed that Ms Higgins had made an offer that, if accepted, would have seen her contribute $200,000 towards the then-senator’s legal costs. Ms Higgins also would have made a $10,000 payment to a women’s charity or refuge in either Queensland or Perth.
The bulk of the proposed settlement would have been paid by Ms Higgins’ parents.
“Our client’s family are gravely concerned about their daughter’s wellbeing for good reasons and your client should be sensitive to that issue too,” the offer read.
The pair would have then released a “joint statement of mutual regret”, acknowledging the significant additional distress and hurt caused by the defamation proceedings.
“Ms Higgins has previously apologised to Senator Reynolds and (chief of staff) Fiona Brown for their hurt and distress. Senator Reynolds recognises that the disputes have resulted in hurt and distress for Ms Higgins. They both agree to put these matters behind them and move on,” the proposed joint statement read.
“Senator Reynolds acknowledges that Ms Higgins genuinely believed that adequate support had not been provided to her by her employer following the events of 23 March 2019.
“Ms Higgins acknowledges that Senator Reynolds was distressed by social media posts in relation to the matter and acknowledges that Senator Reynolds claims she genuinely believed she acted on advice available to her and that she, and her staff (including her chief of staff) had provided appropriate support to Ms Higgins.”
Justice Tottle found that the mutual statement “fell short of an apology by a substantial margin”.
“The plaintiff’s characterisation of it as a statement to the effect the parties have agreed to disagree is accurate,” Justice Tottle wrote.
“As appears to have been the defendant’s intention, the mutual statement would have conveyed the defendant maintained the truth of the defamatory statements made by her.”
Ms Higgins’ lawyers, according to the costs judgment, argued it “is wrong to say” the statement “contained no apology”.
“It contained a proposed statement of mutual regret which acknowledged Ms Higgins’ previous apology to Senator Reynolds and Fiona Brown, as well as the distress caused to Senator Reynolds by the social media posts,” the costs judgment reads.
According to the costs order, Ms Reynolds’ lawyers argued that the proposed payment of the $200,000 by Ms Higgins’ parents would have allowed her to argue that “she did not pay a dollar to the plaintiff” if any incorrect details about the settlement were ever published.
The costs order could well swallow most, if not all, of the remaining proceeds from Ms Higgins’ commonwealth settlement.
The proceeds of that $2.4m settlement were placed into a trust, which could complicate any efforts from Ms Reynolds and her legal team to access those funds.
In his defamation decision last month, Justice Tottle found that Ms Higgins had defamed Ms Reynolds through a series of social media posts.
He found Ms Higgins had made numerous “objectively untrue and misleading” statements when she first went public with allegations that she was raped by a colleague – now known to be Bruce Lehrmann – inside Ms Reynolds’ Parliament House office.
He ruled that Ms Higgins and her partner David Sharaz had defamed Ms Reynolds in a January 2022 Twitter post that carried the imputation that Ms Reynolds had pressured Ms Higgins not to proceed with a genuine sexual assault complaint and was a hypocrite. Ms Reynolds was awarded $135,000 in damages for that post.
He also found Ms Higgins had defamed Ms Reynolds in a social media post that carried the imputation that the senator had engaged in a campaign of harassment, had mishandled Ms Higgins’ rape allegation, and engaged in questionable conduct during the trial. He awarded Ms Reynolds $180,000 in damages on that issue.
He also made some damning findings about Ms Higgins’ claim that there had been a political cover-up of the rape allegations, noting that it was a vital part of Ms Higgins’ story but had not occurred.
Ms Higgins at the time of the defamation decision said she was grateful that the matter had concluded.
“I was 24 years old when I was sexually assaulted in Parliament House,” she said.
“Six years have passed – years marked by challenge, scrutiny and change.
“I accept that Linda Reynolds’ feelings were hurt by these events and I am sorry for that. I wish her well for the future.”
A criminal prosecution against Lehrmann was abandoned due to juror misconduct and he has always maintained his innocence.
He lost his defamation case against Network 10, with Federal Court judge Michael Lee finding that Lehrmann had, on the balance of probabilities, raped Ms Higgins. He is currently appealing against that decision.
More Coverage
