A surprise announcement from the Federal Court chambers of Justice Craig Colvin has put the wobbles underneath former Liberal Party senator Linda Reynolds latest entry into the litigation lottery.A surprise announcement from the Federal Court chambers of Justice Craig Colvin has put the wobbles underneath former Liberal Party senator Linda Reynolds latest entry into the litigation lottery.
Linda was steaming ahead with her damages claims against the Commonwealth and the government’s lawyers HWL Ebsworth for approving compensation of $2.4 million to rape victim Brittany Higgins, who was a member of Reynolds’ staff.
The ex-senator says that she was cut out of the loop during the mediation and insists that aspects of Higgins’ allegations about the level of support she received after the attack by fellow staffer Bruce Lehrmann are false.
On June 11, Reynolds filed a freshened-up version of her statement of claim.
On Tuesday (July 8), Colvin J handed down orders extending the time to July 22 for the Commonwealth and Ebsworth to file and serve their defences.
However, they are not required to produce any defences if by Wednesday (July 16) if they file either an application for summary judgment or for the statement of claim to be struck out.
The basis for this would be that Linda’s complaint is either frivolous, vexatious, ambiguous, prejudicial, embarrassing, or fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action. (Rules 16.21 and 26.01.)
Linda expressly claims that she had to sue Brittany Higgins in the plaintiffs’ playground, the Supreme Court of Western Australia, because the Commonwealth’s settlement damaged her reputation.
Further, she pleads, the legal costs of that case would not have been incurred but for former Attorney General Mark Dreyfus’ misfeasance in public office and HWL Ebsworth’s negligence in compromising Higgins’ claim.
Only a heap of taxpayers money will make her feel better.
At this stage we don’t know the outcome of Justice Paul Tottle’s judgment and orders in Reynolds v Higgins – over claims that Brittany posted critical comments about her former boss – including that she mishandled the rape allegations and conducted a campaign of harassment against the victim.
If any damages are awarded against Higgins they are likely to be beyond reach – locked in a protective trust.
At some point Linda might run out of people to sue. Apart from Higgins and the Commonwealth, she has commenced defamation claims against:
The ACT government (settled)
Shane Drumgold (settled)
David Sharaz (awaiting judgment)
Aaron Patrick (settled)
HarperCollins (settled)
On the flip side, Reynolds was sued by Higgins over the ‘lying cow” comment (settled) and now Fiona Brown, Reynolds former chief of staff, is also suing the Commonwealth (ongoing).
Linda’s reputation, seemingly, needs constant revarnishing while she remains connipted that her raped staffer got any compensation at all.
≈ ≈ ≈
Last month Reynolds told her favourite newspaper The Australian she was “bitterly disappointed” that the National Anti Corruption Commission in Canberra did not nail former attorney general Mark Dreyfus for approving compensation of $2.4 million to rape victim Brittany Higgins.
The NACC “conducted an extensive preliminary investigating into the settlement and found no corruption issue”.
It was Linda’s ministerial couch upon which Higgins was raped by the winsome staffer Bruce Lehrmann. Yet, it is Linda, a flower of the Morrison era, who is the victim of misery and damage.
Essentially, she is fingering Dreyfus for accepting legal advice from the government’s lawyers.
The mediation took place in December 2022 between the Commonwealth and Higgins over what Reynolds described in her statement of claim claim as the couch “incident”. Linda had been notified a year earlier that Higgins was to make a claim against her and others.
Her colleague at the time, Finance Minister Simon Birmingham, approved the minister’s application for legal aid to defend the claim, including for costs and any damages.
After Labor came to office in May 21, 2022 the government’s lawyers, Ebsworth, advised Reynolds about the conduct of the settlement negotiations, specifically:
It may not be in the Commonwealth’s interests to consult her about the proposed terms of settlement; the terms of the settlement may not be in Reynolds’ interests if they are not the same as the Commonwealth’s; nor would it be appropriate to disclose the terms of settlement.
Effectively, the Commonwealth said that Reynolds’ legal aid was conditional on the government’s discretion to take control of her defence – which she claims was a conflict of interest.
Reynolds wanted a paw on the bone during the negotiations claiming Higgins’ allegations about the level of support she received are false. Higgins’ truth is different from Linda’s truth (see particulars of liability in the statement of claim, annexure A).
Reynolds has promised that particulars of legal costs to date for her campaign of vindication “will be provided prior to trial”. Now these’s a distinct possibility there won’t be a trial.