David Sharaz bows out of defamation fight with Senator Linda Reynolds


Brittany Higgins with David Sharaz, who says he doesn't have the means to defend Linda Reynolds' defamation case. Photo: Instagram
Brittany Higginsâ fiance David Sharaz has been accused of âinsultingâ Liberal senator Linda Reynolds in announcing he will no longer fight her defamation battle.
The former defence minister is suing Higgins and Sharaz over a series of social media posts she says have damaged her reputation.
On Tuesday, Higgins failed to have her case delayed over mental health issues when the matter returned to the Western Australian Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Sharaz tweeted he was throwing in the towel, which was confirmed by his lawyer Jason MacLaurin SC.
âDespite our best efforts, Linda Reynolds has not accepted attempts to resolve this matter through mediation and Brittany may now be exposed to another trial. It will be her third,â Sharaz said on social media.
âI cannot afford to pay legal costs to defend myself over a six-week trial.
âAs a result, I have today informed the court that I will not fight Reynoldsâ legal action anymore.
âI now appeal for Senator Reynolds to settle her litigation against Brittany, a rape victim, by agreeing to disagree and putting all of this behind them.â
Tweet from @SharazDavid
Outside court, Reynoldsâ lawyer Martin Bennett said Sharazâs post was insulting, aggravating and an âattention-seeking stunt to manipulate the mediaâ.
âThatâs what Mr Sharaz does best,â he said.
Bennett agreed it was perversely ironic that Sharaz would make the announcement in a tweet while his defamation action over tweets was being heard.
âIt seemed to be staged ⌠Youâve seen the terms of the post â itâs another attack on Senator Reynolds,â he said.
He raised doubts about Sharazâs claim he couldnât afford to continue the case.
âHe lives in a chateau. He hasnât got a job and heâs got a QC ⌠and two solicitors representing him,â he said.
Bennett said the case against Sharaz would proceed even if he was not represented in court and Reynolds would prove her damages.
âIf heâs impecunious, as he asserts in France, heâll go bankrupt,â he said.
Higginsâ lawyer Leon Zwier had asked the court for her trial to be vacated, saying her mental health had suffered due to the Bruce Lehrmann and Network Ten decision handed down last month, and the publicity that followed.
He said it was difficult for her to instruct her lawyers and there was some evidence raised during the proceedings that would need to be assessed and could affect the case.
Zwier said the ongoing mediation between the parties should be allowed to proceed without the spectre of a trial looming over it.
Justice Paul Tottle said the parties were likely to be best served by a conclusion to the case sooner rather than later.
Reynolds is suing Sharaz over tweets he made and a Facebook comment in 2022.
Among the defamatory imputations claimed against Sharazâs tweets were that Reynolds pressured Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint to police, âis a hypocrite in her advocacy for womenâs interests and empowermentâ, interfered in Lehrmannâs trial and bullied Higgins.
Reynolds claims she was also defamed by Sharazâs reply to a comment on her Facebook page that asked how she was still in politics having âdestroyedâ Higgins.
The commenter added, âYouâre a monster who deserves to be in jailâ.
Sharaz responded: âThanks for reminding her. I hope she hears this every day until she diesâ, the Senatorâs statement of claim says.
The case will return to court for a strategic conference on May 10.
Lehrmann could face major bill
Meanwhile, Lehrmann is reportedly considering an appeal against Justice Michael Leeâs judgment that he raped Higgins.
News.com.au reports that Lehrmann has hired noted appeals specialist Guy Reynolds SC, and the appeal plan is likely to be flagged at Wednesdayâs costs hearing.
A court will hear submissions over how much Lehrmann should be forced to pay following his failed defamation suit against Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
Ten and Wilkinson separately retained some of the nationâs most highly-sought after legal representation, which could mean Lehrmannâs liability for repaying their costs skyrockets into the millions.
Lehrmann sued the network and Wilkinson over a February 2021 report aired on The Project, which he argued ruined his reputation by falsely claiming he raped Higgins in a Parliament House office almost two years earlier.
The 28-year-old lost the case after Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann did in fact rape Higgins and later lied about it repeatedly, including throughout the defamation proceedings.
âHaving escaped the lionsâ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,â Lee said in his ruling in April.
In submissions on costs made public last Tuesday, Tenâs lawyers described Lehrmann pursuing the claim as âdeliberately wicked and calculatedâ.
âMr Lehrmann engaged in an abuse of the courtâs processes, ran a case based on positive falsities, and put Network Ten to the cost of defending a baseless proceeding,â barrister Matt Collins KC wrote.
However, Lehrmannâs barrister David Helvadjian contended he acted reasonably in bringing the lawsuit to vindicate his reputation, despite the result.
â[The] allegation was of serious criminal conduct, the allegation had not been established in any criminal proceedings, the respondents bore the onus of proof, and [Lehrmann] disputed the truth of the allegation,â he wrote.
Helvadjian also argued Ten and Wilkinson failed to investigate a number of shortcomings in Higginsâ claims, and therefore may not have acted reasonably in going ahead with the report.
Wilkinson and Ten producer Angus Llewellyn proceeded with an âactive ignoranceâ about warning signs that should have been clear from the start, he said, including claims of a government cover-up that Lee dismissed.
Lehrmann should be compensated for the time and expense in proving Ten and Wilkinsonâs defence of their reporting wrong, he argued.
Collins said Lehrmann had unreasonably rejected a âwalk awayâ settlement offer from Ten in August 2023, despite a very real prospect his case would fail.
âIt must have been apparent to Mr Lehrmann, as at the date of the offer, that the chickens were coming home to roost,â he wrote.
Ten argued Lehrmannâs conduct was so bad in bringing the lawsuit that he should be hit with indemnity costs, forcing him to pay the entirety of their legal bill.
âHe put Network Ten to the cost of defending this proceeding, which can be, with the benefit of hindsight, described as a clear abuse of process aimed at concealing the truth that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins,â Collins wrote.
1800 RESPECT 1800 737 732
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Want to see more stories from The New Daily in your Google search results?
- Click here to set The New Daily as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "The New Daily". That's it.








