Brittany Higgins v Linda Reynolds the lawyers behind the defamation case in WA’s Supreme Court

“Those of us who have worked with Mr Bennett have considerable admiration for his energy and expertise — I am sure that Mr Bennett’s firm will prosper.”

So read a letter cum reference printed in The West Australian in December 1988, following an article announcing the formation of a new Perth law firm, headed by already prominent lawyer Martin Bennett.

That letter was penned by one Malcolm Turnbull.

And more than 35 years on, and with Bennett and Co having morphed and then prospered over those years, it is another familiar Liberal name which Mr Bennett will employ that energy and expertise for.

From today, he will be on the side of Linda Reynolds, as she sues her former staffer turned defendant Brittany Higgins for defamation.

It is an arena Mr Bennett is familiar with, having carved a reputation as one of the most fearsome civil barristers in WA and beyond.

Rothwells, Rose Porteous, Robert Hughes, Lang Hancock, Alan Bond, the Mickelberg brothers, and the Archbishop of Perth. All cases Mr Bennett had had involvement with over the years.

And most memorable for Lloyd Rayney, as he successfully sued the WA Police for their labelling of him as the “prime” and “only” suspect in the murder of his wife Corynn.

An allegation which Mr Rayney was acquitted of, and a crime that has never been solved.

On the other side of the court during that mammoth defamation trial was Rachael Young — part of the team defending the police over that infamous press conference by Detective Jack Lee.

She wasn’t in the lead chair that time. She will be this, hired by Ms Higgins to defend her in a defamation trial which is set to peel back even more layers of the saga sparked by her allegation of a 2019 rape in Parliament House.

Ms Young’s CV reads like one many would wish they had themselves.

Double honours from UWA, more study at New York University School of Law. Admitted to practice in 2008. State solicitors’ office. Barrister. Senior Counsel in 2022. Even helping prosecute three former ministers of the Khmer Rouge for crimes against humanity.

And a case list also stuffed with big names.

Len Buckeridge. Clive Palmer. Bell Group. Andrew Forrest. Paspaley Pearls. The Perth Casino Royal Commission. The City of Perth inquiry. The Aishwarya Aswath inquest.

Even once acting for now Justice Marcus Solomon, the judge who patiently and persistently attempted to have Ms Reynolds and Ms Higgins mediate their issues away.

That mediation fell over, leaving Ms Young and Mr Bennett to stand up today to begin their opposing arguments.

“They are top defamation practitioners in their fields and they would communicate professionally and respectfully. They’re not the problem,” said former WA Supreme Court judge Kenneth Martin.

“The problem is the instructions they’re getting underneath them from their respective camps. They have to act on their client’s instructions. They will give their advice.

“But in terms of how they conduct themselves in court, they are consummate professionals.”

The trial is scheduled to run for five weeks. Witnesses to possibly be called include former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and current deputy opposition leader in the Senate Michaelia Cash.

And of course, Ms Higgins, who will fly in from France to give evidence in person — the first time she will have been seen publicly in Australia since the announcement that she is pregnant.

A previous time for her in Perth, during her time working for Ms Reynolds during the 2019 federal election campaign, will be one of the topics she will be quizzed on.

She claims that time was one of misery, coming shortly after the alleged rape and in the context of an offer made to her by her bosses that she couldn’t refuse — work in WA or don’t work for us again.

Not only do you lose, you’ve got to pay all your own costs and they will be very significant.

Mr Bennett has already signalled his intention to call other staff from that time to counter Ms Higgins’ claims.

And that will be just part of what is set to be another week in another witness stand for Ms Higgins’ who has already given evidence in the criminal trial of Mr Lehrmann and his defamation claim against the Ten Network — which he lost.

Mr Martin said while the reputational stakes are high, the financial implications are even higher.

“In every case that goes to trial, there’s usually a winner and a loser. So probably one of these two is going to lose — and lose badly,’ he said.

“And not only do you lose, you’ve got to pay all your own costs and they will be very significant. But worse than that, if you lose, the general rule is that you’ve got to pay the other side’s cost as well.

“It’s absolute disaster. It’s the nuclear outcome. It’s Hiroshima.”

Another lawyer with knowledge of the case had another prediction for the hearing.

“It’s going to be a shitshow,” they said.