Senator Linda Reynolds has launched legal action over Brittany Higgins’ $2.4 million settlement sum, adding another dispute to the ongoing row between the two.
The former defence minister lodged a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, naming Ms Higgins and Power Blazers Pty Ltd, as trustee of the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust, as defendants.
The trust was created when Ms Higgins entered a deed with the Commonwealth in December 2021 for a $2.4 million settlement, after making her allegations of sexual assault public.
In the writ obtained by Business News, Senator Reynolds alleged Ms Higgins transferred the settlement sum, or a significant portion of it, to herself.
Senator Reynolds claimed, in the writ, that Ms Higgins disposed of the settlement sum with the intention of defeating or delaying creditors, of which the politician was one.
The writ said Ms Higgins was appointed as trustee and was the sole beneficiary of the trust but she retired as trustee in early 2022, with Power Blazers appointed in her place.
Senator Reynolds has sought a court order to void the transfer and claimed Power Blazers should repay Ms Higgins the amount she transferred out of the trust.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission records show Power Blazers is owned by Ms Higgins and her father Matthew Higgins.
Senator Reynolds has been chasing details of the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust for some time, including identifying the trustee.
This comes amid an ongoing defamation trial between Senator Reynolds and Ms Higgins which started earlier this month.
Senator Reynolds sued Ms Higgins last year, accusing the former Liberal staffer of publishing defamatory material of her in the wake of the sexual assault allegations.
Ms Higgins made her allegations against fellow Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann public in a televised interview with Channel Ten.
She accused Mr Lehrmann of raping her in Senator Reynolds’ Canberra office in 2019 when they both worked for the Liberal party.
Lehrmann has denied raping Ms Higgins and his criminal trial was derailed by juror misconduct.
In March, Ms Higgins and partner David Sharaz flew from their home in France to Perth for a mediation session with Senator Reynolds at the Supreme Court of WA.
Despite WA Supreme Court Justice Marcus Solomon's suggestions for parties to settle matters outside of court, peace talks between the pair failed to solve the dispute with the defamation trial set to run for five weeks.
Outside court, Senator Reynolds' lawyer Martin Bennett said if the money from the trust was transferred back to Ms Higgins, his client could recover damages if she was succesful in her claim.
Today's trial
Mr Bennett told the court there were inconsistencies in medical reports relating to Ms Higgins, applying to subpoena Queensland-based pscyhiatrist Julio Clavijo and his documents as the trial nears the end.
He said said there were significant differences of two reports signed by Dr Clavijo on the same day, including the prospect of Ms Higgins returning to work after the alleged sexual assault.
"A portion of it related to the handling of Ms Higgins' situation by Senator Reynolds. It didn’t appear in one report, it appeared in the other – that’s a material difference," he told the court.
Lawyer Rachael Young, on behalf of Ms Higgins, opposed the application, claiming the inconsistencies were immaterial to the dispute.
Ms Young also claimed, in court, that Senator Reynolds could have applied to subpoena Dr Clavijo well before the defamation trial started.
"We’re now on Day 15 of the trial, we’ve had 23 witnesses…there’s no reason we have heard to why these matters were not heard much earlier," she said.
WA Supreme Court Justice Paul Tottle today refused Mr Bennett's application to subpoena the witness and further documents.
Justice Tottle told the court the evidence Senator Reynolds sought from the Dr Clavijo’s documents would be too remote from the main question of whether the politician engaged in a campaign of harassment against Ms Higgins.
“Moreover, if leave to grant subpoena was given and the doctor was called to give evidence and gave evidence, I fear that that evidence would lead to the development of further subsidiary issues which would be further removed from the major issue that I am called upon to resolve,” he said.
“There is in my view considerable force in the case management submission raised by the defendant’s senior counsel namely that these issues which the plaintiff seeks to now explore…were capable of being explored by issue of subpoenas at a much earlier stage of these proceedings.”
The trial continues.
