David Sharaz: Brittany Higgins’ husband hit with legal costs order and damages bill up to $220,000

David Sharaz has been ordered to stump up an eye-watering sum after his wife Brittany Higgins’ bruising court loss to her former boss Linda Reynolds, despite his bid to walk away from the proceedings.

Mr Sharaz chose not to defend himself in the bitter Supreme Court defamation case the former Liberal senator brought against her former junior media adviser and partner over a series of social media posts in 2022 and 2023.

In them, Ms Higgins referred to being “bullied,” alleging Ms Reynolds mishandled her claim she was raped by colleague Bruce Lehrmann at Parliament House in Canberra in 2019 after a night out drinking.

Mr Sharaz’s Tweets included: “I’m aghast that despite everything you put a staffer through, you’re still a minister.”

Ms Reynolds proved victorious last month, when Justice Paul Tottle ordered Ms Higgins pay $315,000 in damages, plus more than $26,000 in interest.

He then ordered Ms Higgins pay 80 per cent of the now ex-politician’s legal bills, which Ms Reynolds has described as being in the “millions.”

And on Thursday, Justice Tottle publicly released his judgement in respect of Mr Sharaz, ordering him to pay up to $220,000 in damages, comprising $85,000 payable by him alone and $135,000 that the couple are jointly liable for.

Mr Sharaz is expected to pay even more in court costs, with the bill likely running well into six figures.

Ms Reynolds sought either an order that her costs be paid on an indemnity basis, a special costs order removing scale limits or a lump sum costs order in the amount of $490,000.

Justice Tottle determined Mr Sharaz must pay on an indemnity basis, which are awarded only in exceptional circumstances and cover all costs and disbursements reasonably incurred.

Under the Defamation Act, such costs can be awarded if the court is satisfied that the defendant unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to a settlement offer proposed by the plaintiff.

“I am satisfied the defendant’s failure to make a settlement offer was unreasonable,” Justice Tottle said.

“Each of the defamatory publications made by him involved a variation on the theme that the plaintiff pressured or bullied (or in the case of the 3 December 2022 Facebook post ‘destroyed’) Ms Higgins as part of the cover up alleged by Ms Higgins.

“The cover up allegation had no basis in fact. 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.”

Ms Higgins’ costs order — which she is appealing as well as her damages bill — revealed she had made a $200,000 settlement offer just before last year’s trial but that was deemed unreasonable, for reasons including it being open for acceptance for just three days.

While it is not known how much remains of Ms Higgins’ $2.4 million settlement with the Federal Government — clinched over the mishandling claims — the couple reportedly had to sell their chateau in France recently for an estimated $700,000.