Linda Reynolds claims she was ‘obliged' to sue Brittany Higgins in a civil defamation case
Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds will claim she was 'obliged' to sue Brittany Higgins in a civil defamation case in new court documents seeking taxpayer-funded compensation for her losses and damages.
In the latest branch of the byzantine web of legal action associated with the saga, her legal team have asked the Federal Court to consider whether taxpayers should make a contribution to cover her 'losses' including legal costs in the WA Supreme Court.
While the total amount she has spent on the case is not stipulated it is conservatively estimated to be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In new legal filings, the Liberal Senator's legal team argues she 'has suffered, and is continuing to suffer, loss and damage.'
'These losses include: Legal costs associated with being obliged to commence proceedings so as to vindicate and restore her reputation,'' the document states.
'Further particulars of the legal costs incurred to date in vindicating the Applicant's reputation will be provided prior to trial.'
The firm is claiming equitable damages or alternatively, damages for breach of fiduciary duties; or damages for negligence; further or other relief as the Court deems just.
The defamation case in the WA Supreme Court is tied to social media posts on Instagram and Twitter made by Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz which Senator Reynolds says 'maliciously' targeted her.
She argues the posts falsely alleged she had 'harassed' Ms Higgins and mishandled the former staffer's claim she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann.
'They were published in furtherance of a plan by the defendant and Mr Sharaz to use the defendant's allegations of a rape and the political cover-up… as a weapon to inflict immediate political damage upon the plaintiff and the then government,' the Senator's original WA Supreme Court statement of claim reads.
Mr Lehrmann has always denied the rape allegation and was charged but never convicted before the trial collapsed as a result of juror miscondct
Now, there is a new legal case spawned by the ongoing saga in the Federal Court.
Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds is suing the commonwealth for unspecified damages over its conduct in Brittany Higgins' compensation case in the Federal Court.
Senator Reynolds' legal team will argue that the $2.4 million taxpayer-funded payout offered to Ms Higgins in late 2022 had the effect of 'publicly affirming' Ms Higgins' allegations against her.
As a result, she argues to clear her name she then had to sue Ms Higgins for defamation in a civil lawsuit in the WA Supreme Court.
The civil defamation case lodged in the WA Supreme Court was concluded in September but no judgment has been made and Justice Paul Tottle has reserved his decision.
In legal documents lodged with the Federal Court, Senator Reynolds says the commonwealth was in breach of its duty to act in her best interests when it settled Ms Higgins' claim after a one day mediation.
The mediation follows around 12 months of discussions between Ms Higgins legal advisers and the Commonwealth, a process that was delayed by the criminal trial.
Taxpayers paid for legal advice for Senator Reynolds and Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash in the original negotiations over the compensation claim for Ms Higgins because it was an issue that arose in the course of their work as ministers.
But Senator Reynolds is now taking legal action against those lawyers– including for negligence – against law firm HWL Ebsworth which acted for the commonwealth in the case.
Senator Reynolds' has long argued that the Commonwealth threatened to not to pay her legal fees and any costs awarded if she attended the mediation.
As a result she agreed not to attend the mediation despite the fact that she wished to do so.
As a result of that decision the Defence Minister argues she was unable to dispute any of Ms Higgins' allegations in her compensation claim.
Last month, Senator Reynolds told The Australian newspaper that the commonwealth and its lawyers had been 'hopelessly conflicted'.
'The Attorney-General and his ministers had been such staunch public supporters of Ms Higgins, politicising her untested, unsubstantiated and untrue allegations against me and it is impossible to reconcile how they considered they could act in my best interests and advocate for me in those circumstances,' Senator Reynolds said.
'Ms Higgins' allegations concerning me were entirely defensible but in settling the claim against me it sent a message to the nation that those allegations were so true, so damning, so abhorrent that the commonwealth was prepared to pay her $2.445 million after only a single instance of mediation, in a single day for proceedings not yet filed and quite possibly statute barred.
'That settlement validated the sustained defamation and fuelled further defamation which I have been forced to defend and prosecute, at great personal and financial cost.'
She confirmed she had appointed her own lawyers Clayton Utz, to help defend Ms Higgins's claims.
However, she says the Commonwealth took over the claim on behalf of Senator Reynolds and their solicitors, HWL Ebsworth, were appointed to her.
Senator Reynolds' lawyers had written to HWL Ebsworth stating their concerns and pointing out that 'the plain conflict of interest by reason of the public support offered to Ms Higgins and her version of events by the Attorney-General and other approving Ministers'.
In her statement of claim, Senator Reynolds' notes that Ms Higgins was permitted to extend her claim beyond the one-year limitation period, which was due to expire on December 6, 2022.
A 27-page annexure to the statement of claim outline multiple examples where Senator Reynolds says the evidence is contrary to Ms Higgins' particulars of liability concerning Ms Reynolds.
A spokesperson for HWL Ebsworth has previously declined to comment while the matter was ongoing.
In a separate action, Senator Reynolds' former chief of staff, Fiona Brown has lodged a fair work case against the commonwealth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Australian
40 minutes ago
- The Australian
Anthony Albanese ‘open' to defence funding boost
You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback. You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Anthony Albanese is opening the door to lifting defence spending ahead of his potential meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 next week, while declining to confirm publicly whether he considers China a national security threat to Australia. The Prime Minister has for weeks stood firm on his position that he would not blindly tick off on the call from US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth for Australia to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent, but on Tuesday left the door open to increasing funding for defence more broadly. 'Arbitrary figures lead to a cul-de-sac and we want to make sure as well that every single dollar that defence spends results in actual assets,' he told the National Press Club ahead of travelling to the G7 this week. When asked if defence spending as a portion of GDP could feasibly increase as investment in such assets and capabilities went up, Mr Albanese said: 'Of course, we'll always provide for capability that's needed. I've made it very clear – we will support the capability that Australia needs. 'I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that.' It follows senior ministers such as Richard Marles and Pat Conroy indicating a similar willingness to boost spending on defence, with Mr Conroy confirming last week the government was 'open to having a conversation about increasing defence funding'. Former Defence Department deputy secretary Peter Jennings said the critical question for Mr Albanese was whether the current defence spend was adequate to the strategic challenge, arguing that the answer was a resounding 'no'. 'He's got a little bit of wriggle room now, if he finds that he's under pressure from Trump or other allies or the calls for increasing spending just get too great, too loud domestically, well, then he does have a way out of it,' Mr Jennings said. 'What he's doing is just describing a process; when he's pressed on this issue, all he says is, 'well, what we do is that we consider our needs based on proposals that are put in cabinet'. 'He's not locking himself out of doing more, but clearly, I think he's reluctant to, because they haven't so far.' Strategic Analysis Australia head of research Marcus Hellyer said he was sceptical over Mr Albanese's language, arguing that for more investment to be made in specific capabilities, the government had to tick off on an increase in defence spending, rather than the process occurring the other way around. 'We have had review after review … and assessment after assessment, which have determined the capabilities we need, yet the current investment program doesn't include them, why?' he said. 'Because the current investment program was designed around a certain funding envelope. 'That's why it's ludicrous when people pompously say 'we will acquire the capabilities we need' when governments are the ones setting a funding envelope.' While giving himself room to move on the issue of defence spending, Mr Albanese also sought to dodge direct questions over whether China posed a national security threat to Australia and argued that simplifying what was a 'complex set of relationships' was neither 'diplomatic' nor 'mature'. 'We engage constructively in the region, including with China, and including with ASEAN nations and what we say is that it is in Australia's interests and indeed, the world's interest for there to be peace and security in our region,' he said. 'That's our position. That's the mature way in which we are able as a middle power to exercise influence in the region.' It follows a Chinese flotilla circumnavigating Australia ahead of the election, with Mr Marles confirming Australia engaged in an 'unprecedented level of surveillance' of the ships that he said were conducting exercises and 'seeking to … demonstrate' capabilities. 'We are very aware of what that task group was doing, the exercises that it was engaging in, what it was seeking to be able to demonstrate,' he told Sky. Despite the expected meeting with Mr Trump being just days away, Mr Albanese once more made veiled inferences over the danger of 'copying' policies from overseas – or more specifically the US – that would leave Australia 'narrower, less generous and more divided'. It followed Labor accusing the Coalition of importing policies from overseas numerous times during the election, arguing the opposition would 'Americanise Medicare' if it won office. Mr Albanese also confirmed that other policies on top of the question of defence spending, such as the news media bargaining code and the under-16s social media ban, were also not 'on the table' when it came to speaking to Mr Trump about lifting the tariffs imposed on Australian products by the US.
SBS Australia
3 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Which Indigenous players should inaugural Perth Bears coach Mal Meninga be targeting?
Interviews and feature reports from NITV. A mob-made podcast about all things Blak life. The Point: Referendum Road Trip Live weekly on Tuesday at 7.30pm Join Narelda Jacobs and John Paul Janke to get unique Indigenous perspectives and cutting-edge analysis on the road to the referendum. Watch now
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Australia, UK to sanction Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich
Australia has issued sanctions against two of the most controversial members of Israel's government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. The pair have been hit by the joint action from the Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealand and Norwegian governments, enforcing travel bans and freezing their assets. In a statement, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the sanctions have been announced in response to the pair's incitement of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Mr Ben-Gvir serves as National Security Minister in Israeli Prime Minister's Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government, while Mr Smotrich is the finance minister. They are two of the most outspoken far-right politicians calling for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and have also agitated for continuing fighting in Gaza and the return of Jewish settlements in the strip. Mr Smotrich has said he would allow "not even a grain of wheat" to enter Gaza, adding that the strip would be "entirely destroyed" during the war. Mr Ben-Gvir has called for the Palestinian population to be pushed out of Gaza, saying "we must encourage emigration." He has also repeatedly fuelled tensions in Jerusalem's Old City by insisting Jewish people can pray on the Temple Mount, something reserved solely for Muslim worship, and the replacement of the Al-Aqsa mosque with a synagogue. The joint statement from the UK, Australian, Norweigan and Canadian foreign ministers, said: "Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. "Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous. These actions are not acceptable. "We have engaged the Israeli Government on this issue extensively, yet violent perpetrators continue to act with encouragement and impunity. This is why we have taken this action now – to hold those responsible to account. "The Israeli Government must uphold its obligations under international law and we call on it to take meaningful action to end extremist, violent and expansionist rhetoric." Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the Israeli government had been informed about a "UK decision to include two of our ministers on the British sanctions list". "It is outrageous that elected representatives and members of the government are subjected to this kind of measures," he said. "I discussed it earlier today with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we will hold a special government meeting early next week to decide on our response to this unacceptable decision." The sanctions were first reported by British newspaper The Times, prompting early responses from Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich directed at the UK government. "We passed Pharaoh, we will also pass Starmer's wall," Mr Ben-Gvir said. "I will continue to work for the State of Israel and the people of Israel without fear or intimidation." Mr Smotrich said he viewed the decision with contempt. "Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we cannot do it again," he said. "We are determined God willing to continue building." The UK has sharpened its criticism of Israel in recent weeks, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer foreshadowed sanctions against Israel in a joint statement with Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney and French President Emmanuel Macron. Israel's humanitarian blockade of Gaza has been roundly criticised by leaders, with French President Emmanuel Macron labelling it as "shameful."
