Brittany Higgins might not have to pay Linda Reynolds, the $315,000 plus $26,000 interest she was awarded on Wednesday (27/8/25), if Higgins declares bankruptcy.
If Higgins does declare bankruptcy, and doesn’t have to pay Reynolds, it could cause a domino effect and drive Reynolds into bankruptcy because Reynolds would be left on the hook for her own legal fees, for suing Brittany Higgins, which would likely be somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million.
News.com reported (27/8/25):
News.com.au has previously reported that legal experts believe Sen Reynolds could struggle to recover her costs if she wins her defamation case against Ms Higgins because a $2.4m compensation payout may be “protected” if the former political staffer is forced into bankruptcy.
and:
Professor Jason Harris, a specialist in corporate law, insolvency law and commercial law in the Sydney Law School and director at the Ross Parsons Centre of Commercial, Corporate and Taxation Law said that his reading of the deed of settlement suggests the proceeds could be protected even if Senator Reynolds wins the case.
“A payment of compensation for a wrong done to a person (either before or during bankruptcy) is exempt from distribution to creditors if the person becomes bankrupt,” Prof Harris said.
“A wrong done to the person would include actions such as personal injury or defamation. The deed … shows the claims are for victimisation and discrimination rather than, say, unfair dismissal, so they would be likely to come within the exception.”
Prof Harris said assets bought with exempt money – such as compensation funds – were also “exempt from distribution to creditors”. (Click here to read more)
Linda Reynolds is also suing the federal government
In April 2025 Linda Reynolds announced she is “suing the Commonwealth, claiming it breached its duty to act in her best interests while settling a compensation payment with Brittany Higgins.” (Click here to read more)
That means Linda Reynolds’ legal expenses will keep on rising putting more pressure on her especially if Reynolds doesn’t get any money from Brittany Higgins. Unless the federal government decides to pay a settlement to Reynolds which wouldn’t go down well with voters.
Linda Reynolds loses her conspiracy claim against Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz
Linda Reynolds lost on her claim that Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz conspired against her so Reynolds claim that Scott Morrison and herself were a targets of “The plan” orchestrated by Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz failed.
Linda Reynolds spent a large part of her 50-minute retirement speech in parliament playing the victim and defaming Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz, claiming she was a target of “The plan”, under the protection of parliamentary privilege. (Click here to read more)
The below video is the judgement summary read out by Justice Paul Tottle in the WA Supreme Court and a video I published in March 2024 titled “How Linda Reynolds shakes people down using old defamation laws. A must watch for social media users”.
Justice Paul Tottle’s judgement (Click here to read the judgement)
I said in my last article “The judge will have to find whether or not a victim of crime, Brittany Higgins, has defamed former Senator Linda Reynolds, who went out of her way to support rapist Bruce Lehrmann and publicly attack Brittany Higgins.”.
Well, the judge did find that Brittany Higgins defamed Linda Reynolds who we all know went out of her way to support rapist Bruce Lehrmann and publicly attack Brittany Higgins. (Click here to read the article)
I didn’t think Justice Tottle would do it, but he did.
The judgement is 360 pages and 957 paragraphs long and I have only had a quick skim over small parts and done a few keyword searches, but two things that stood out was the judge’s comments supporting the credibility for Linda Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown.
At paragraphs 22 and 24 on page 20 the judge says in relation to Linda Reynolds:
22. Seventh, the plaintiff has had a distinguished career involving public service in the military and in politics which required her to demonstrate she was trustworthy and dependable. That is a matter which speaks to her credit in a general sense.
24. As I have said, at times the plaintiff’s discursive approach to addressing questions was frustrating and, while there were aspects of her evidence that I have not accepted, my overall assessment is she was an honest witness though one determined to ensure her account of events was heard.
Politicians are not trustworthy nor dependable nor honest. For a judge to say that shows his state of mind, as politicians regularly lie to voters, in parliament and to the media, and it isn’t a good state of mind to have.
Brown didn’t give evidence because of mental health reasons but her affidavit and the transcript of her evidence from Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Channel Ten was used.
At paragraph 31 on page 23 the judge says:
31. I find those parts of Ms Brown’s evidence that were derived from her notes to be reliable evidence. I make that finding with some confidence. Indeed, I find Ms Brown’s notes to be the most reliable evidence of what was said in the conversations to which they relate. My reasons are as follows. First, she was a senior and experienced administrator. Before taking up her role as the plaintiff’s chief of staff, she was the Director of Operations in the Prime Minister’s Office. Her professional background points to her being a person capable of taking accurate notes about matters that were self-evidently serious.
They are not exactly solid reasons for believing Fiona Brown.
Brown worked for Scott Morrison as the Director of Operations in the Prime Minister’s Office and as the whole country knows Morrison was probably the most corrupt Prime Minister the country has ever seen and working for Morrison is not a positive for Brown, it’s a major negative, and Justice Tottle has got it badly wrong.
Justice Tottle attacked Brittany Higgin’s credibility, but he was all sweet with Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown and he found there was no cover-up. There is evidence a mile long of a cover-up and anyone saying otherwise hasn’t got a clue or is deliberately lying.
Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here
Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.
Discover more from Kangaroo Court of Australia
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Senator Linda Reynolds
Like you i have only skimmed the judgement and seen some comments in the media. Like you, i have seen that Tottle has made some pretty astonishing assumptions to reach conclusions and like the comments about politicians, his assumptions would not be accepted by many people.
I found his arguments that it was reasonable for Reynolds to leak documents to Albrectsen astonishing.
This has not settled anything and the whole way this appalling rape case was handled stinks of corruption
I know it would cost a fortune but can Higgins appeal this result?
She might not want to for mental health reasons
Is it just me but do Tottles comments indicate a strong bias towards Reynolds? I was waiting for him to declare Reynolds a bloody saint.
I agree. I am also aware of people in ACT Courts being charged with contempt for, in my opinion, less that what Reynolds and her husband did as far as sharing running commentary of evidence/statements given/led prior to Reynolds herself was called in to give HER OWN own evidence in the SAME COURT CASE.
Admittedly the contempt case/s I am thinking about were in the pre-digital device age so things may have got a lot slacker but in one of the cases even a Solicitor was charged for, I think as it was a long time ago now, becoming aware of earlier evidence given in a case where he was representing 1 of the parties when someone else mentioned it either in his office or while walking to the court building to represent his client.
Either way if I did what Reynolds and partner did in court I would expect at the very least that both parties be kicked out of the court, and precinct, and the person due to give evidence to only return once called. That’s before we even start to bring in things like Judicial officials and News limited behavior etc etc in later iterations of the same sad saga.
This judgement is sickening & speaks volumes about the corruption in this country
well, lawyers consider themselves more reliable than the general public, in spite of all evidence of corruption over the decades, so I’m not surprised this judge decided integrity was indicated by jobs held. It’s twaddle, of course, but they must give credence to the idea of their self-awarded super-reliability somehow
Good article KCA. And yes, I completely agree with you about politicians perpetually lying. I totally disagree with Tottles’ outcome and I rather hope that Higgins pleads bankruptcy. Reynolds is obviously oblivious of the immense support that Higgins has.
Tottle must have been to the Walter Sofronoff Institute for Judicial Integrity.
She will get a job in Defence, so she won’t be broke?
From the 29th of June 2025:
Linda Reynolds is preparing to return to a post-politics career in defence after her time as defence minister was cut short amid the Brittany Higgins rape allegations.
News Corp can reveal the veteran – who served for three decades in the army before becoming a senator – will focus on working in the defence space after she leaves parliament on June 30.
“I’m taking a short break but I remain passionately committed to the defence of our nation,” she said. “My life has been about service.”
She said her post-politics career will be “service related” and she was passionate about ensuring the AUKUS security pact with the UK and US is delivered on schedule in her state of Western Australia.
“I continue to engage heavily with strategic think tanks here and overseas,” she said.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/former-defence-minister-linda-reynolds-reveals-new-career-plans/news-story/75565f91987ec4f2eef6dd2871f3d215?giftid=PKqvSxCR8Q
The emphasis this pathetic story has got in the Australian media shows just how bankrupt media reporting and social integrity has got on their way to the bottom of the barrel. This nonsense has taken precedence over the real problems crippling this nation.
This a a judicial and political corruption website and this story goes to the heart of political and judicial corruption. For example, former judge Walter Sofronoff being found to have acted corruptly while dealing with the matter.
I was referring to the mainstream media, Shane. You’re the only breath of fresh air I can detect in the whole business of reporting now that Pilger and his ilk have all gone. My main criticism is reserved for the shabby performance of academics in telling people why and how their ignorance and tolerance are so easily abused.
Laurie has got to say has got for a third time in a short paragraph before I’ll even consider his top of the barrel commentary. Standards has got ta be raised around here.
As you have already documented and proven, KCA, there is rampant corruption in our judiciary, as well as among politicians. Birds of a feather stick together.
Regardless of what the judges and much of the mainstream media say about Higgins’ lack of credibility, the public disregards their blatant bias and shortsightedness and is right behind this courageous, honest and caring young woman.
Well well could not have happened to the more deserving. So glad that Sen Reynolds is going to protect us ! Now what and whom was that about a lying cow ?
Linda Reynolds was never in the regular army. Only army reserve. Apparently she was nothing special, even though she reach the rank of Brigadier. As a Polly in my view she was nothing special. I would rate her at the same low level as Morrison and Dutton. She would love to get back into defence to perhaps lap up some of the AUKUS spilt gravy. As for the defamation business, indeed Tottle has made some pretty astonishing assumptions to reach conclusions. I would be happy to donate to Go Fund Me so Higgins could appeal.
Yes. It is an error of law to draw conclusions from assumptions and personal beliefs.
The judge must draw conclusions from the evidence before him.
In breaking news, NACC has reported that, for the first half of the year investigating the investigation into the investigation into the Royal Commission into Robodebt that——-there is nothing to report.
Well they spent a good part of this year investigating 2000 pages of documents after Reynolds’ vexatious complaint over Higgins’ compensation payout from the federal government. Because even though they were investigated for corruption regarding their handling of the Robodebt investigation and were found to have acted corruptly, and ordered to recommence their dismissed ‘investigaton’. apparently Reynolds’ deranged bitter and stupid campaign against a rape victim takes precedent. NACC needs a flame thrower taken to it and be started over from scratch.
Just heard on ABC’s Law Report that Linda Reynolds obtained a judgement that, should she win her defamation case, she would be able to access the $2.4M that Brittany Higgins was awarded by the government and currently held in trust.
I just had a listen and the lawyer talking on the ABC’s Law Report is a defamation lawyer and I think she might be talking out of school.
Where as in the story above one of the key people has expertise in this specific field of “corporate law, insolvency law and commercial law” and he says “that his reading of the deed of settlement suggests the proceeds could be protected even if Senator Reynolds wins the case.”
But we will all know the near future what the situation is.
I stopped regarding lawyer`s opinions yonks ago when I realised there has to be a winner and a loser lawyer in every case. Maybe, occasionally, both lose? I wonder which solicitor/barrister holds the Australian record for losing cases?
Oh Robbie why perpetuate the absurd that politicians espouse. Now who and what was that about a “Lying Cow” ? “My life is about service ” Smacks of the patently false claims of Robert Maxwell as he plundered the Mirror Newspapers worker’s Superannuation Fund.
“I didn’t think Justice Tottle would do it, but he did.”
No, I didn’t think he would either. I was certain. I guess I was wrong.
Some judges live on another planet.