Conservative commentator Prue MacSween has called on Brittany Higgins’ husband David Sharaz to ‘get a job’ after a terse online exchange.
Ms MacSween responded online to Ms Higgins’ confirmation that she would need to sell her property in France, which she had bought less than a year ago, to cover the costs of defending herself against Linda Reynolds’ defamation lawsuit.
Ms MacSween mocked the couple on X, saying: ‘Too smart by halves.’
‘Mon Dieu Higgins has to sell her French Chateau to pay for her mounting legal bills. C’est la vie.’
Mr Sharaz fired off an angry response: ‘You are … vile’.
Ms MacSween responded sharply, suggesting that Mr Sharaz – who has not had regular employment since early 2023 – focus on job hunting rather than posting on social media.
‘I would have thought he’d be better placed to use all his efforts to find himself a job rather than trolling on X,’ she said.
‘I have no interest in his opinion of me. I think he should be focused on considering the repercussions of his strategies & political games. They are pretty vile.’
It is understood Mr Sharaz issued a further rejoinder, but quickly deleted it.
In December 2022, Ms Higgins received a $2.4million compensation settlement from the Commonwealth over the handling of her allegation that she was sexually assaulted inside Parliament House.
The claims made by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz about Sen. Reynolds prompted the senator’s legal action against them.
Both Ms Higgins and alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann were staff members in Sen. Reyonds office.
Mr Sharaz left his radio station job at Southern Cross Austereo just after the legal action was taken against him.
He faces potential bankruptcy after deciding not to challenge the defamation lawsuit.
Ms Reynolds’ matter against Ms Higgins is listed for a four-week hearing in the WA Supreme Court, starting on August 2.
Last week, Ms Reynolds won the right to access details of the multi-million dollar Commonwealth payout locked away in a managed trust for Ms Higgins.
The trust was created in late-2022 to hold the proceeds of a $2.4 million financial settlement she struck with the federal government.
Senator Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett told the court that his client wanted the document to understand who the trustee was and what jurisdiction’s laws were relevant to it.
It could lead to the senator instigating further court action to have trust funds restored to Ms Higgins before the defamation trial judgment is handed down.
‘[It] is likely to be the only process by which Senator Reynolds recovers damages and costs in the event she’s successful,’ he told reporters outside court.
‘If you’re out of pocket, and you’ve mortgaged your house to the hilt to pay for litigation, recovering those costs is something you try and do as soon as possible.’
During the hearing, the court was told an affidavit penned by one of Ms Higgins’ lawyers, Leon Zwier, stated she had net assets worth less than $10,000 in June.
‘We know that from all intents and purposes, Ms Higgins leads a wonderful lifestyle of travel and events,’ Mr Bennett said as he outlined the reasons why his client wanted to access the trust deed.
Ms Higgins’ lawyers fought the application for access to the financial trust, arguing the Bankruptcy Act provided measures to enable the senator to access funds if she won the defamation case.
Senator Reynolds’ legal team said the trust was created to protect Ms Higgins from future creditors, such as the Commonwealth, Lehrmann, Penguin and her.
Chief Justice Peter Quinlan said its name – the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust – suggested it was created to protect her from something or someone but there was no direct evidence to support the senator’s claim.
Chief Justice Quinlan said it could have been created to protect Ms Higgins from exploitation amid her ongoing health challenges.
However, he concluded it was in the interests of justice for Senator Reynolds to be granted discovery of the trust documents.
He also said it may be the only way Senator Reynolds can collect damages if she wins her defamation case before urging the parties to resolve their disputes before the trial.
‘It’s not too late for these parties to take the resolution of all disputes between them into their own hands,’ he said.
Lehrmann denied raping Ms Higgins and that case ended in a mistrial, with prosecutors withdrawing the charge and ruling out a new trial due to concern for Ms Higgins’ mental health.
Justice Michael Lee in April found to the civil standard that Lehrmann did, on the balance of probabilities, rape Ms Higgins and dismissed his defamation proceedings against Network Ten.
Ms Reynolds’ matter against them is down for six-week hearing in the WA Supreme Court on August 2.