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
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Tasmanian election called for July 19, but both Liberals and Labor hamstrung on key issues
After a nail-biting few days of "will they, won't they, could they, should they," Tasmania's very, very early election is full-steam ahead. Except this one can't exactly be full steam, can it? After all, it's an election that nobody wanted brought on for a variety of reasons, including the dire state of Tasmania's budget situation. That was one of the reasons for Labor's successful no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff. Imagine making that a sticking point and then throwing cash at a bunch of bowls clubs (they're always on the funding list). If the major parties want to look like they're serious about getting Tasmania's finances back on track, they are going to need to avoid any form of pork barrelling. No matter how tempting. The Liberals have been accused of it the past three elections. Their response is to deny it's happening and insist they're simply listening to the community. Labor also made promises to sports clubs last election, but the plan was to have government departments "rigorously" assess them all before the funds were handed out. On top of that, Labor has said it wants to ban pork barrelling as part of its plan to fix the budget, it would be rather hypocritical to engage in it itself. But it's not just pork barrelling that arguably needs to go. Even a competitive sports grants process, which would otherwise be welcomed, could be a little on the nose, given the state barely has a cent to spare. And we all know that pool of money would not be up for grabs if it were not for an election. The other issue is the Liberals have just put out a budget. We know what they were planning to spend the money on, and where. Sure, they can change some things up — but how many sweeteners can they really surprise us with? So if they can't focus it on all the cash they want to drop, or their savings plans, that leaves policy. The Liberals have already begun to rethink theirs. Starting with privatisation. The premier announced just last Saturday the Liberals will not privatise any state-owned companies, and will in fact legislate so a two-thirds majority of parliament is required to sell them. Clearly they know going to an election with a "we want to explore privatisation" agenda is unlikely to win them many fans. It was also one of the reasons listed on the no-confidence motion. But how many other unpopular policies can they really rethink? The May decision to walk away from a treaty process was deeply unpopular among some Aboriginal groups, but there's no policy fix for the bungled process around the new Spirit of Tasmania ferry terminal, for example. The party's most unpopular position, an undying support for the almost billion-dollar Macquarie Point stadium, is unlikely to change. Lucky for the Liberals, Labor has taken the same stance, so it can't be used against them by the only other party viable to form government. But while the Liberals are trying to reconsider policies, Labor is going to need to come up with some (more). The party has been grappling with being stuck in the political wilderness for over a decade now. It lost the last election just 15 months ago. Badly. So, naturally, all policies are under review. With a little more notice of this election, it might have spent some time polishing them off, but it is partially responsible for this mess after all. When it comes to offering up something fresh, Labor's got the advantage of having a new leader, and as Dean Winter likes to remind everyone, "Labor has changed under me". Now is his time to really prove it. He certainly gained some kudos from the public for bringing the Spirit of Tasmania saga to light and has made it clear that the party backs workers. His mantra is almost "jobs, jobs, jobs". But the party still needs to figure out its position on a lot of issues. For example, just last month Mr Winter could not say if Labor was for or against a treaty. His argument was he could not take a side without consultation, but the issue is not exactly new. And Mr Winter has to transition from criticism to having solutions — fast. And answer questions such as whether Labor still wants to pause new permits for whole-home short-stay accommodation. Unclear. Or, what the plan is to cut the amount the state pays on locum doctors? Or, how it would go about closing the Ashley Youth Detention Centre if it's suddenly thrust into power. It is also a rare day when the party talks about what used to be some of its core issues — health, housing and education. And while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talks about the need to balance industries and the environment, Mr Winter's pro-industry mantra can come across as "jobs at any cost". But where there is a void, there is always someone else happy to fill it. In this case, that is the Greens and other environmentally conscious crossbenchers. The same goes for the stadium. It is the crossbench who will be rewarded for their anti-stadium stance, and if the polls are anything to go by, it is a large crowd to capitalise on. But for how many Tasmanians will the stadium be their number one issue? Considering the Liberals' stuff-ups are fresh in people's minds, and Labor is copping a lot of the blame for the early election, the crossbench could very well benefit from voters' frustrations. But Tasmanians annoyed about the election also have a reason to take their anger out on the crossbench. Because, as much as the Greens and other independents like to spruik the power and benefits of minority parliament, most of them played a hand in blowing up that parliament less than halfway through its term. How can voters trust that won't happen again soon? Little about this election is going to be normal. But like it or not, in just over a month's time we're being dragged to the polls. No-one is coming into this unscathed and the end result is still anyone's game. Whatever the result, those 35 politicians owe it to Tasmanians to make it work for longer than 15 months, whatever it takes.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Edwin Kumar deported back to Sydney after US sentencing for AN0M bugged phone sting
A tech whiz caught up in what the Australian Federal Police (AFP) dubbed the biggest organised crime sting in its history has avoided prison in the United States and is back free in Sydney. Edwin Harmendra Kumar avoided spending more time in a California jail cell after facing a San Diego court in March. Court records state he was sentenced to a four-year jail term to be followed by three years' supervised release, though was deported having already spent three years in custody. Little has been known about what happened to Kumar, who was one of two Australian nationals extradited three years ago to the United States over the distribution of the specialised AN0M devices used to facilitate crimes. Kumar, from Kogarah in Sydney's south, was also one of dozens of arrested in the AFP's Operation Ironside in 2022. The joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and AFP investigation involved planting the mobile devices into organised crime networks. In reality, the AFP was able to watch live as crime figures organised drug importations, kidnappings and murders. Kumar was enlisted as a one of several 'distributors' of AN0M, tasked with taking subscription payments and providing technical support to criminals. According to court documents he pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering in February — a charge reserved for members of organised crime networks regardless of what role they played. According to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, Kumar was caught in messages bragging about bringing kilograms of cocaine from Belgium to Australia on fishing boats. He has never been charged or convicted of any drug offences in relation to Operation Ironside. When contacted this week, Kumar's American lawyer Victor Sherman said he told the judge "it was time to go home" for the former Sutherland Shire computer master. The original indictment naming Kumar in the case revealed criminals were being charged $1,700 for six months' access to the the AFP-bugged service in Australia. In total, the syndicate Kumar was a part of netted $15 million from distributing the devices into the criminal underworld, court documents state. Kumar was extradited to the US in 2023 where he was charged with racketeering and faced a maximum penalty of 20 years in an American prison. He was originally named in the indictment alongside Australia's most wanted man Hakan Ayik, who remains in custody in Türkiye for leading a transnational drug empire. Part of the case against Kumar was that he was part of the enterprise led by Mr Ayik that saw them unwittingly run and distribute the messaging platform infiltrated by police. Law enforcement had dubbed Mr Ayik and other Australia drug dealers caught up in the sting as an "Aussie cartel" at the time. The other Australian arrested at the time Osemah Elhassen, was picked up from his base in Colombia and extradited to America in May 2023. He was jailed for five years in a San Diego court in November 2024. The FBI claimed the investigation thwarted 150 murders, saw them seize more than 12 tonnes of cocaine and took 300 firearms off the streets.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
United States to conduct review into AUKUS agreement as PM prepares to meet Trump
Australia's AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal with the United States and United Kingdom is facing a review by the Pentagon, as the prime minister prepares for his first face-to-face meeting with the US president. Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has provided some reassurance about the future of the $368 billion submarine agreement struck in the Biden era. But in a move first reported by the Financial Times and confirmed by the Pentagon, a review will be conducted to ensure the program meets the "America First" criteria. Announced in 2021, the AUKUS agreement was designed to eventually support a shipbuilding industry in Australia to construct the highly complex nuclear-powered submarines using a UK design and technology shared between the three countries. But in the 15 years ahead of that, the US was set to provide at least three Virginia-class submarines, though its own domestic manufacturing industry is under pressure. Australia's agreement on AUKUS included significant investment in the American production line, and has been considered advantageous to the US. US Democrat congressman Joe Courtney, one of AUKUS' supporters in Washington, warned of serious consequences if the Trump administration junks the defence agreement. "To abandon AUKUS — which is already well under way — would cause lasting harm to our nation's standing with close allies and certainly be met with great rejoicing in Beijing," Courtney said. The prime minister is expected to lock in face-to-face talks with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada, which starts on Sunday.
