Brittany Higgins could lose $2.4m payout after Linda Reynolds’ defamation win
Brittany Higgins risks forfeiting her government payout, with $340,000 in damages likely to be dwarfed by a later costs order that could force her to cover Linda Reynolds’ extensive legal fees.
Brittany Higgins made objectively false statements to bolster an untrue claim of a political cover-up of her rape allegation, a West Australian Supreme Court judge has ruled, in a crippling verdict that has shredded her credibility, threatens her $2.4m commonwealth compensation payment and could send her into bankruptcy.
In a devastating conclusion to a defamation action that could have been resolved during its lengthy mediation process, Justice Paul Tottle on Wednesday found Ms Higgins defamed her former boss, Linda Reynolds, through social media posts, awarding the ex-senator more than $340,000 in damages and interest.
Justice Tottle also found Ms Higgins made “objectively untrue and misleading” statements around the time of her 2021 interview on Network Ten’s The Project, which – unlike unreliable statements made immediately after she was allegedly raped by Bruce Lehrmann – could not be attributed to the “effects of trauma”.
Ms Reynolds’ legal team on Wednesday indicated it would seek indemnity costs from Ms Higgins, and flagged it was willing to pursue further proceedings to access the trust holding her assets if necessary.
Speaking outside court after her victory, Ms Reynolds said she felt “great relief” that her reputation had been “finally and fully vindicated”, years after Ms Higgins went public with her allegations that the senator had engaged in a cover-up of her alleged rape by co-worker Mr Lehrmann inside the then senator’s Parliament House office.
“However, it is disappointing that it took 4½ years, multiple court actions and millions of dollars,” she said.
Court observers estimated that Ms Reynolds’ legal costs alone were likely to run to at least several hundred thousand dollars, if not into seven figures, and the result meant Ms Higgins was likely to have to cover most if not all of those as well as the cost of her own unsuccessful defence. Ms Higgins and husband David Sharaz had already previously put her home in France up for sale due to mounting legal costs.
The bulk of the $2.4m compensation payment made by the commonwealth to Ms Higgins in December 2022 was moved into a trust, and Ms Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett indicated that he would pursue proceedings to access that trust if necessary.
“We will jump off that bridge when we get to it,” Mr Bennett said.
Speaking to reporters outside court, Ms Reynolds – who retired from the Senate earlier this year – criticised the federal government and Labor over their “gross politicisation” of Ms Higgins’ rape complaint.
Ms Higgins initially claimed that Ms Reynolds and the Morrison government had engaged in a cover-up of her alleged rape, a claim later repeated in parliament by Labor ministers Penny Wong and Katy Gallagher.
In the judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Tottle found the cover-up allegation had no foundation in fact.
The offices of Senator Wong and Senator Gallagher were contacted for comment.
Ms Reynolds said while she was not expecting an apology from Labor over its role “in this completely fabricated ‘Me Too’ political hit job”, the government and its lawyers should be looking closely at Justice Tottle’s findings.
“I was falsely accused of conspiring with the then prime minister to cover up the rape of a young woman in my office. This lie was so shocking, it was so despicable, and so devastating that I had no choice but to stand up tall and keep fighting, no matter how many times I was knocked down,” Ms Reynolds said.
“This lie devastated me. It devastated my staff, it devastated my family and so many friends.
“But let me be very, very clear today. This was never about Ms Higgins’ allegation of rape. And it was also never about the money. This action was always, it was always, about the dishonest and devastating attack on my reputation that was based on very carefully curated lies by Ms Higgins, Mr Sharaz and the well-documented co-conspirators with them.”
Justice Tottle ruled that Ms Higgins and Mr 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.
But Ms Reynolds was less successful on her claim brought over posts published by Ms Higgins in July 2023. While Justice Tottle found they carried a defamatory imputation that Ms Reynolds wanted to silence victims of sexual assault, he said Ms Higgins had established defences of fair comment and qualified privilege. He also found Ms Reynolds’ claim that Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz had conspired against her had failed.
Justice Tottle made a series of findings about Ms Higgins’ credibility, identifying no less than 26 “false or misleading aspects” from her initial media interviews about the alleged rape.
He said that while Ms Higgins’ recollection was likely to have been adversely affected by the trauma of the alleged rape, her account of events was “distorted by her need for events to conform to her view about how she was treated by the Liberal Party” and Ms Reynolds.
“After long reflection on this difficult issue, I have concluded that in her concern to lend credibility to the allegation of a cover-up, the defendant demonstrated such an indifference to the truth that her account of the essential elements of the allegation can only be regarded as dishonest,” he said.
The cover-up, he said, was a “vital” part of Ms Higgins’ story but had not occurred.
“Whatever the defendant may have felt in 2021 about the way she was treated by the plaintiff and (Ms Reynolds’ then chief of staff) Ms (Fiona) Brown in 2019, the allegation of a cover-up had no foundation in fact and the allegation of inadequate support was based on an incomplete and misleading account of the facts,” Justice Tottle said.
Ms Higgins was not present for the delivery of the judgment.
In a statement released to news.com.au, she said she was grateful 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.
“Thank you to the Australian public for their compassion and understanding throughout this journey.
“My family and I now look forward to healing and rebuilding our lives.”
Ms Higgins has been primarily living off the proceeds of the commonwealth compensation payment. She has returned to Australia from France and is working alongside Mr Sharaz at a public relations company. She recently gave birth to a son.
Ms Higgins’ legal team had argued a truth defence against the main imputations put forward by Ms Reynolds, repeatedly citing the then senator’s settlement of a defamation complaint brought by Ms Higgins over Ms Reynolds’ infamous “lying cow” comment as an example of her mishandling of the rape complaint.
But Justice Tottle accepted Ms Reynolds’ explanation that the remark was uttered out of frustration over what she knew to be lies over the way she and Ms Brown had conducted themselves towards Ms Higgins in the wake of her alleged rape.
“I accept the plaintiff’s explanation for the ‘lying cow’ remark,” Justice Tottle wrote.
“I find it was uttered as an emotional and involuntary reaction to the defendant’s description of how she was treated by the plaintiff and Ms Brown, which, as I have found, was untrue.”
Justice Tottle also rejected the argument put forward by Ms Higgins’ team that messages exchanged between Ms Reynolds and Mr Lehrmann’s criminal defence lawyer, Steven Whybrow, showed that the then senator wanted to assist Mr Lehrmann.
“The plaintiff provided information to Mr Whybrow to shine a light on the truth as she saw it and not for the purpose of harassing the defendant,” the judge said.
Mr Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence. His appeal against Justice Michael Lee’s decision was heard in Sydney last week.
More Coverage
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout