David Sharaz bows out of defamation fight with Senator Linda Reynolds
Brittany Higgins with David Sharaz, who says he doesn't have the means to defend Linda Reynolds' defamation case. Photo: Instagram
Brittany Higgins’ fiance David Sharaz has been accused of “insulting” Liberal senator Linda Reynolds in announcing he will no longer fight her defamation battle.
The former defence minister is suing Higgins and Sharaz over a series of social media posts she says have damaged her reputation.
On Tuesday, Higgins failed to have her case delayed over mental health issues when the matter returned to the Western Australian Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Sharaz tweeted he was throwing in the towel, which was confirmed by his lawyer Jason MacLaurin SC.
“Despite our best efforts, Linda Reynolds has not accepted attempts to resolve this matter through mediation and Brittany may now be exposed to another trial. It will be her third,” Sharaz said on social media.
“I cannot afford to pay legal costs to defend myself over a six-week trial.
“As a result, I have today informed the court that I will not fight Reynolds’ legal action anymore.
“I now appeal for Senator Reynolds to settle her litigation against Brittany, a rape victim, by agreeing to disagree and putting all of this behind them.”
Tweet from @SharazDavid
Outside court, Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett said Sharaz’s post was insulting, aggravating and an “attention-seeking stunt to manipulate the media”.
“That’s what Mr Sharaz does best,” he said.
Bennett agreed it was perversely ironic that Sharaz would make the announcement in a tweet while his defamation action over tweets was being heard.
“It seemed to be staged … You’ve seen the terms of the post – it’s another attack on Senator Reynolds,” he said.
He raised doubts about Sharaz’s claim he couldn’t afford to continue the case.
“He lives in a chateau. He hasn’t got a job and he’s got a QC … and two solicitors representing him,” he said.
Bennett said the case against Sharaz would proceed even if he was not represented in court and Reynolds would prove her damages.
“If he’s impecunious, as he asserts in France, he’ll go bankrupt,” he said.
Higgins’ lawyer Leon Zwier had asked the court for her trial to be vacated, saying her mental health had suffered due to the Bruce Lehrmann and Network Ten decision handed down last month, and the publicity that followed.
He said it was difficult for her to instruct her lawyers and there was some evidence raised during the proceedings that would need to be assessed and could affect the case.
Zwier said the ongoing mediation between the parties should be allowed to proceed without the spectre of a trial looming over it.
Justice Paul Tottle said the parties were likely to be best served by a conclusion to the case sooner rather than later.
Reynolds is suing Sharaz over tweets he made and a Facebook comment in 2022.
Among the defamatory imputations claimed against Sharaz’s tweets were that Reynolds pressured Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint to police, “is a hypocrite in her advocacy for women’s interests and empowerment”, interfered in Lehrmann’s trial and bullied Higgins.
Reynolds claims she was also defamed by Sharaz’s reply to a comment on her Facebook page that asked how she was still in politics having “destroyed” Higgins.
The commenter added, “You’re a monster who deserves to be in jail”.
Sharaz responded: “Thanks for reminding her. I hope she hears this every day until she dies”, the Senator’s statement of claim says.
The case will return to court for a strategic conference on May 10.
Lehrmann could face major bill
Meanwhile, Lehrmann is reportedly considering an appeal against Justice Michael Lee’s judgment that he raped Higgins.
News.com.au reports that Lehrmann has hired noted appeals specialist Guy Reynolds SC, and the appeal plan is likely to be flagged at Wednesday’s costs hearing.
A court will hear submissions over how much Lehrmann should be forced to pay following his failed defamation suit against Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
Ten and Wilkinson separately retained some of the nation’s most highly-sought after legal representation, which could mean Lehrmann’s liability for repaying their costs skyrockets into the millions.
Lehrmann sued the network and Wilkinson over a February 2021 report aired on The Project, which he argued ruined his reputation by falsely claiming he raped Higgins in a Parliament House office almost two years earlier.
The 28-year-old lost the case after Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann did in fact rape Higgins and later lied about it repeatedly, including throughout the defamation proceedings.
“Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” Lee said in his ruling in April.
In submissions on costs made public last Tuesday, Ten’s lawyers described Lehrmann pursuing the claim as “deliberately wicked and calculated”.
“Mr Lehrmann engaged in an abuse of the court’s processes, ran a case based on positive falsities, and put Network Ten to the cost of defending a baseless proceeding,” barrister Matt Collins KC wrote.
However, Lehrmann’s barrister David Helvadjian contended he acted reasonably in bringing the lawsuit to vindicate his reputation, despite the result.
“[The] allegation was of serious criminal conduct, the allegation had not been established in any criminal proceedings, the respondents bore the onus of proof, and [Lehrmann] disputed the truth of the allegation,” he wrote.
Helvadjian also argued Ten and Wilkinson failed to investigate a number of shortcomings in Higgins’ claims, and therefore may not have acted reasonably in going ahead with the report.
Wilkinson and Ten producer Angus Llewellyn proceeded with an “active ignorance” about warning signs that should have been clear from the start, he said, including claims of a government cover-up that Lee dismissed.
Lehrmann should be compensated for the time and expense in proving Ten and Wilkinson’s defence of their reporting wrong, he argued.
Collins said Lehrmann had unreasonably rejected a “walk away” settlement offer from Ten in August 2023, despite a very real prospect his case would fail.
“It must have been apparent to Mr Lehrmann, as at the date of the offer, that the chickens were coming home to roost,” he wrote.
Ten argued Lehrmann’s conduct was so bad in bringing the lawsuit that he should be hit with indemnity costs, forcing him to pay the entirety of their legal bill.
“He put Network Ten to the cost of defending this proceeding, which can be, with the benefit of hindsight, described as a clear abuse of process aimed at concealing the truth that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins,” Collins wrote.
1800 RESPECT 1800 737 732
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
