A lawyer for Brittany Higgins' fiancé has started to counter WA Senator Linda Reynolds' defamation allegation, claiming it is "a drop in the ocean of publicity", during a court hearing.
A lawyer for Brittany Higgins' fiancé has started to counter WA Senator Linda Reynolds' defamation allegation, claiming the disputed publication was "a drop in the ocean of publicity" during a court hearing.
The former federal minister launched legal proceedings against Ms Higgins’ fiancé David Sharaz in January, alleging he made statements that were defamatory of her in his social media posts.
Mr Sharaz’s lawyer Jason MacLaurin today told the Supreme Court of Western Australia that Ms Reynolds was able to make statements in parliament under absolute privilege, which would have been reported.
“Our point is that when one looks at the amount of publicity being said by Senator Reynolds, things said by Senator Reynolds … that social media posts [were made] well after the event and simply be no reasonable proposition to the harm,” he said to Supreme Court Justice Marcus Solomon.
“If one thinks of who might be reading Mr Sharaz’s twitter account - Who would it be?
“In context of a drop in the ocean, it would only be fellow travellers like Mr Sharaz, or fellow journalists or people who dislike him intensely because of the publicity that is notorious.
“Senator Reynolds is suing a private citizen that is not a WA resident, over social media posts that are old.”
When asked by Justice Solomon in court whether his submission today was about the weaknesses and disproportion of Ms Reynolds' claims, Mr MacLaurin affirmed.
In the Supreme Court writ lodged in January, Ms Reynolds claimed two tweets on Mr Sharaz’s Twitter account published in January and December last year were falsely defamatory of her, causing her loss and damage.
In the writ, Ms Reynolds is claiming damages, including aggravated damages, an injunction to restrain Mr Sharaz from publishing the defamatory material or words, and interest on the damages.
Last month, Ms Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett told reporters outside the court that the writ had been amended to reference five social media posts allegedly made by Mr Sharaz.
Speaking to the court, Mr MacLaurin sought a security for costs application, claiming the multiple defamation actions being pursued by Ms Reynolds would bring financial discomfort for related parties.
Mr MacLaurin said it was not suggested that Ms Reynolds was impecunious, but defamation proceedings were notoriously expensive and would most likely end in tears.
“Senator Reynolds has already in this court also sued Ms Brittany Higgins,” he told the court.
“The forensic purpose is to demonstrate this is a plaintiff that has embarked upon two defamation actions in this court.
“One of the ways in which someone financially comfortable might end up not financially comfortable and cause other parties to not be financial comfortable is to embark on defamation proceedings… this would involve hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.”
Ms Reynolds last month started a separate defamation action against Ms Higgins, alleging the former Liberal party staffer’s social media posts included defamatory imputations against her.
The court was told Ms Reynolds issued concerns notices to Tanya Plibersek and the author of a website titled Kangaroo Court.
"You're looking at a plaintfiff who is looking to suing a lot of people over defamation in social media posts," Mr MacLaurin told the court.
In court, Mr Bennett said the “drop in the ocean of publicity” submission was a misapprehension of hundreds of years of the law.
“Ocean of publicity - it’s extraordinary that would be advanced as a proposition,” he told the court.
“It’s an irrelevancy to look at that position.”
Mr Bennett told the court Mr MacLaurin’s submission belittled followers of Mr Sharaz’s twitter account that they had no relation to WA, noting federal Labor member Patrick Gorman was on the followers list.
He also said the security of costs application based on potential expenditure and the matter “ending in tears” was inappropriate.
“Most defamation [actions] end in tears,” Mr Bennett said in court.
“People sue for defamation to restore their reputation, not to make a fortune.”
Justice Solomon will reserve his decision for the security for costs application until tomorrow but has suggested the parties undergo mediation and settle the matter outside of court.
"We've had a lot of discussions today for financial costs. I'm mindful of the human costs to everybody," he said in court.
Justice Solomon said the court was available and would facilitate the same arrangement for mediation for Ms Higgins.
