Brittany Higgins has less than $10,000 in assets and the remainder of her multimillion-dollar Commonwealth payout is locked up in a managed trust.
The 29-year-old is continuing to defend a defamation action brought by her former boss, Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds, and during the latest in a series of court cases on Wednesday, the politician won the right to access details of the trust.
The former defence minister, who plans to retire from politics at the next election, is suing Higgins for damages over a series of social media posts she says damaged her reputation.
Ahead of the August trial in that case, the senator’s legal team on Wednesday outmaneuvered Ms. Higgins’s legal team in a skirmish over access to Ms. Higgins’s trust documents.
It was created in late 2022 to hold the proceeds of a $2.4 million financial settlement made with the federal government amid claims that Sen. Reynolds failed to support her after Bruce Lehrmann allegedly raped her.
Senator Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, told the High Court in Perth that his client wants the document to include an understanding of who the trustee is and what laws in which jurisdiction are relevant to him.
This could lead to the senator taking further legal action to have the trust funds returned to Ms Higgins before a verdict is handed down in the defamation case.
Brittany Higgins (pictured left with husband David Sharaz) has less than $10,000 in assets and the remainder of her multimillion-dollar Commonwealth payout is locked up in an administered trust.
“This is likely to be the only process by which Senator Reynolds will recover damages and costs if she is successful,” he told reporters outside the court.
“If you’re short of money and have mortgaged your house to the hilt to pay for litigation, recovering those costs is something you should try to do as soon as possible.”
During the hearing, the court was told that an affidavit written in June by one of Ms Higgins’ lawyers, Leon Zwier, stated she had net assets worth less than $10,000.
“We know that for all intents and purposes Ms. Higgins leads a wonderful lifestyle of traveling and events,” Bennett said in describing the reasons his client wanted access to the trust agreement.
Her lawyers challenged the request, saying it was speculative, futile, premature and unnecessary because the Bankruptcy Act provided measures that would allow the senator to access funds if she won the defamation case.
They also raised tensions over Senator Reynolds’ concerns about whether compensation awarded to Ms Higgins might have to be returned to the Commonwealth and her possible attempt to access it through damages.
Senator Reynolds’ legal team said the trust was set up to protect Ms Higgins from future creditors including the Commonwealth, Mr Lehrmann, Penguin Australia and herself.
Chief Justice Peter Quinlan said its name – the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust – suggested it was set up to protect her from something or someone, but there was no direct evidence to support the senator’s claim.
He said it may have been created to protect Ms Higgins from exploitation amid her ongoing health problems.
Senator Linda Reynolds is suing Brittany Higgins for defamation over a series of social media posts
However, Chief Justice Quinlan concluded that it was in the interests of justice that Senator Reynolds be granted access to the trust documents.
He also said it may be the only way Senator Reynolds can collect damages if she wins her defamation case before urging the parties to resolve their disputes before trial.
“I don’t want to sound like King Canute trying to hold back the ocean,” he said.
“It is not too late for these parties to take into their own hands the resolution of all disputes between them.”
Lehrmann denied raping Ms. Higgins and that case ended in a mistrial, with prosecutors dropping the charge and ruling out a retrial out of concerns for Ms. Higgins’ mental health.
In April, Judge Michael Lee found under a civil standard that Lehrmann had, on a preponderance of probabilities, raped Ms Higgins and dismissed his defamation case against Network Ten.
