www.dailytelegraph.com.au
How Brittany Higgins lost her entire $2.4 million compensation payout
As Linda Reynolds’ lawyers move to bankrupt Brittany Higgins’ husband, insiders have revealed just how much of the $2.4m taxpayer-funded payout remains
Brittany Higgins’ $2.4 million compensation payout has been all but wiped out by her legal costs and lavish spending, according to insiders, leaving her trust fund bare.
As her former employer Linda Reynolds moves to have David Sharaz officially declared bankrupt over her defamation victory, sources close to the couple say there’s not enough money left in the trust to pay the $340,000 plus in damages, let alone the estimated $1 million in Linda Reynolds’ legal fees.
The court case over social media posts has already cost Ms Higgins over $600,000 in legal costs for her own lawyers, wiping out what remained of her taxpayer-funded nest egg.
The shock development means that the ex Liberal Senator is unlikely to ever recover the millions of dollars she spent on the blockbuster defamation case despite her court victory.
Sources close to the couple have told news.com.au that less than $50,000 remains in trust bank accounts.
If true, the destruction of the nest egg - that was designed to be held in trust to support Ms Higgins for the rest of her life - will never be available to pay Linda Reynolds’ legal bills associated with the defamation case.
Lawyers for Linda Reynolds have now contacted David Sharaz in the wake of the WA Supreme Court finding he defamed her to warn they are “instructed to serve you with a bankruptcy notice.”
Less than three years after Ms Higgins secured $2.4 million in December, 2022 for her alleged rape at Parliament House and the aftermath, friends of the couple say they are renting an apartment in Melbourne and face bankruptcy.
Where did all the money go?
When Brittany Higgins was first awarded the $2.4 million, the exact amount remained a tightly-guarded secret for months until it emerged in the defamation case launched by her alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
He has always denied that any sexual contact occurred.
During her cross examination in that case, Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister probed Ms Higgins on reports she received more than $3 million.
“It has been widely reported that you received over $2 million as a result of the outcome of that mediation, is that correct?,” Mr Whybrow said.
“That’s what’s been reported,” Ms Higgins replied.
Ms Higgins said what the offer was on paper and what she actually received after legal fees and taxes were two different things.
“How much money did the Commonwealth pay you to stop you litigating this matter?,” Ms Higgins was asked by Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer.
“I received $1.9 million,” Ms Higgins replied.
“So you’ve got no idea what your legal costs were or what the gross settlement sum was?,” Mr Whybrow asked.
“I think it was around $2.3 million,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
“I think it was the amount and then those taxes and then the lawyer took some, but I’m not sure what that fee was. I was never focused on that fee. It was only what I received that I cared about.”
Legal costs mount
Ms Higgins has received pro bono advice for years.
Initially, she was represented pro bono by Sydney-based Rebekah Giles who negotiated for her after Linda Reynolds was accused of calling her a lying cow in a private office and was overheard by staff.
Later, the respected lawyer Leon Zwier took over representing her pro bono during the criminal trial. He has never charged her for legal advice.
She was also represented by Canberra-based personal injury lawyer Noor Blumer of Blumers Lawyers who negotiated her compensation deal.
As she revealed during the Channel 10 defamation case, Ms Higgins spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees for personal injury specialists Blumer lawyers, which negotiated with the Commonwealth for a year before the matter was settled during a one-day mediation.
During the defamation case launched by Mr Lehrmann against Channel 10, she was also represented by Nicholas Owen SC, who is now a federal court judge, at no cost to herself.
However, when Ms Higgins was sued by Linda Reynolds over social media posts in 2023, she was forced to retain a barrister and a WA based legal team.
It ultimately cost her over $600,000 and forced the sale of her French home.
When those costs and her costs in the personal injury claim are considered, it is likely that she has spent nearly $1 million on legal costs in the last three years.
That would gobble up around half of the $1.9 million that Ms Higgins was awarded in late 2022.
A Gold Coast rental and a trip to the Maldives
In theory, that would leave somewhere around $1.3 million after the $600,000 is subtracted from $1.9 million.
That amount appears to have been whittled away over the last three years on international travel, living expenses, moving overseas with pets and then returning after a year and the couple’s Gold Coast wedding.
During the majority of that period, Mr Sharaz stopped work and the couple travelled together and lived in France where visa prohibitions would have limited his ability to find work.
Soon after securing the cash nearly three years ago, she established a trust fund and purchased a new car.
She also seriously considered buying a home before ultimately renting a Gold Coast apartment that was sometimes left empty as she travelled the world.
Her Instagram account documented trips to the Maldives, Paris and other locations.
Brittany Higgins buys a house in France
The defamation legal costs were funded in part by the sale of her French home, which was originally purchased for around $600,000, before being sold at a loss.
It was put up for sale around a year after it was purchased.
The couple desperately dropped the price several times to find a buyer.
Last year, the couple also held a glamorous wedding, under the shadow of Linda Reynolds’ looming defamation trial.
It is believed to have cost over $100,000.
Claims Ms Higgins has worked since 2021 don’t stack up
Despite reports that Ms Higgins has worked since she received the compensation payout, friends of the couple say this has never been the case.
Her work with the United Nations was an unpaid internship and her work with the Australian National University was also unpaid.
She has not worked full-time for over four years. Her part-time work has been rare although she was awarded a significant contract to write a book.
While it was recently reported that she joined a PR company, the work was not full-time and it remains unclear whether it is ongoing.
If Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz are eventually declared bankrupt, Ms Reynolds could seek as a creditor to garnishee the couple’s wages, although this would only apply to earnings over $90,000.
Warning to Linda Reynolds
Insiders claim that Ms Reynolds’ legal team was warned that Ms Higgins had just $10,000 to her name outside of the trust in the lead up to the trial.
“My client may never overcome the trauma she suffered as a consequence of the rape and remains immovable in relation to what she regards as the requests for her to abandon her feelings and beliefs about that traumatic event and the immediate aftermath,’’ her lawyer Carmel Galati wrote to Ms Reynolds’s legal team prior to the trial.
“Your client remains at risk even if she is successful.
“Your client will never restore her reputation by suing a staffer raped in her office.”
Ms Galati argued in the pre-trial correspondence that the $2.4 million compensation payout Ms Higgins received was not on the table.
“The personal injuries damages paid by the Commonwealth to my client would never have been, are not and will never be available to meet any judgment your client may obtain against mine,’’ she said.
Linda Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, rejected this assessment.
“The offer provides no vindication of my client’s reputation and given the lateness of the offer the proposed contribution to my client’s costs is inadequate,’’ he said.
“Unlike your client who has been mostly represented on a pro bono basis my client has been forced to incur costs of the proceedings.”
Ultimately, Justice Tottle confirmed Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz were now “jointly and severally liable” meaning Ms Reynolds “can recover the whole amount” from both of them.
“The defamatory publications were indefensible. A settlement offer should have been made. At the very least an offer to make an apology should have been made,” Justice Tottle’s judgment read.
In a statement after the judgment, Ms Higgins said she was grateful the matter had finally reached a conclusion.
Higgins’ husband did not fight case
Senator Reynolds’ lawyer has previously predicted Mr Sharaz will end up “bankrupt” and criticised Ms Higgins’ husband for crying poor while living in a French “chateau”.
The unemployed expat had not held a full-time job since he parted ways with a Brisbane radio station shortly after Senator Reynolds announced she was suing him for defamation over social media posts in 2023.
However, he was recently employed by a PR and advocacy firm in Melbourne.
Senator Reynolds’ defamation lawyer Mr Bennett said Mr Sharaz had defamed his client and that the case against him would proceed regardless of whether or not he was legally represented.
“If he’s impecunious as he asserts in France, he’ll go bankrupt,” he said.
“He defamed my client. You can jump off litigation but it’s a costly exercise.”
It’s an outcome that Ms Higgins recently cryptically foreshadowed on a social media post when she posted a series of happy images of her with her husband David and baby Freddie at the Brighton Bathing Boxes in Melbourne.
