WA court orders damages in Higgins-Sharaz defamation case; former ally Easton slams Sharaz as a 'clown'

A Western Australia Supreme Court panel has handed down damages in a high-profile defamation dispute tied to former defence minister Linda Reynolds, Brittany Higgins and Higgins’s husband, David Sharaz, along with other parties connected to their public posts. Justice Paul Tottle ordered Sharaz to pay Reynolds 92,000 Australian dollars in damages plus legal costs that could exceed 500,000 dollars, after a series of posts Sharaz published in 2022 and 2023. Higgins, Sharaz’s wife and a former political staffer, was ordered to pay Reynolds 315,000 dollars in damages plus 26,000 dollars in interest and to cover about 80 percent of her own legal fees. When combined with Reynolds’s costs, the proceedings run into several million dollars.

The court also found Higgins and Sharaz jointly liable for 135,000 dollars in damages arising from another post they published together about Reynolds’s former boss. Higgins is appealing elements of the ruling, including the damages award and costs order, according to documents filed in the WA Court of Appeal. She is also challenging a finding that she breached a 2021 deed of settlement between her and Reynolds by an Instagram post referring to herself as a defamation victim. Higgins previously apologized to Reynolds after Reynolds prevailed in the defamation trial, which concluded in September 2024.

Gregg Easton, a longtime former radio broadcaster and media adviser who was friends with Sharaz during journalism studies at the University of Canberra in 2011, publicly weighed in on the dispute this week. In a sharply worded social-media post, Easton described Sharaz as a “self-entitled and delusional clown” and said their decade-long friendship had collapsed over Sharaz’s reaction to warnings about posts linked to an ongoing legal case at the time.

The judge’s decision comes after a protracted legal fight that has stretched over several years and elevated the notoriety of the cast involved. The court’s ruling noted that Reynolds had been subjected to a campaign of online remarks alleging, among other things, that she harassed Higgins and mishandled a high-profile rape allegation involving a fellow staffer. The case has drawn attention to the delicate boundaries of political speech, the responsibilities of public figures, and the consequences of social-media posts that touch on active legal proceedings.

Higgins’s damages bill, which includes 315,000 dollars in damages plus 26,000 dollars in interest and the majority of her legal costs, has been characterized by attorneys and commentators as a substantial financial exposure that could approach two million dollars when combined with other charges and interest. Higgins has argued that some portions of the decision were misapplied or should be reconsidered on appeal, and she is seeking to challenge findings about a 2021 settlement status and the nature of her Instagram communications. The defense team for Higgins maintains that the public record shows the posts were defamatory, but they contend that the damages awarded should be recalibrated on appeal.

The case has long linked the personal and professional spheres of Higgins, Sharaz, Reynolds, and their respective supporters. The court’s decision followed a five-week defamation trial in late 2024, which concluded after years of contentious proceedings. Although Higgins apologized to Reynolds at the time of the trial’s end, the legal fight did not end with the verdict; instead, it has moved into the appellate stage as parties pursue various interpretations of damages, liability, and the scope of settlement terms.

In broader context, the defamation dispute has intersected with other high-profile Australian legal actions around the same period. A separate matter involving another former colleague, Bruce Lehrmann, has also drawn attention to the handling of sexual assault allegations within political circles and the legal consequences of comments made in the public sphere. While Lehrmann’s case has its own procedural track, the Reynolds-Higgins-Sharaz dispute continues to influence public discourse on accountability, media coverage, and the limits of online commentary in the context of ongoing investigations and trials.

As the appellate process unfolds, observers will watch whether Higgins’s appeal attracts changes to damages or cost orders and whether the court’s interpretation of the 2021 settlement agreement withstands scrutiny. Gregg Easton’s public rebuke of Sharaz adds a personal dimension to a case that has already exposed long-standing tensions among colleagues who once shared classrooms and professional ambitions. The court’s rulings, and the reactions to them, will likely shape how individuals in public life approach social media communications about ongoing or potential legal matters in the future.

The parties did not respond to requests for comment by press time, but the public record indicates a continuing legal saga with significant financial implications for those named in the defamation filings. The WA Court of Appeal is expected to issue its own determinations in the coming months, potentially clarifying the boundaries of defamation, settlement agreements, and responsibility for damages arising from online activity related to political and legal controversies.