Higgins case

Question

1. Can you confirm the exact date on which the Department first received former West Australian senator Linda Reynolds' account of the events forming the subject of Ms Brittany Higgins' civil claim against the Commonwealth - not a summary prepared by legal advisers, but Ms Reynolds' own account, in her own words? 2. Could the Department provide all correspondence between the Department, HWLE and Ms Reynolds' solicitors Clayton Utz in which Ms Reynolds' account was sought or provided? 3. At any point before 13 December 2022, did the Department of Finance or its legal advisers review the publicly available transcript from the criminal trial of Bruce Lehrmann in the ACT Supreme Court? If yes, who reviewed it, when, and what conclusions were reached? 4. Could the Department provide legal advice it received after October 2022 that references or engages with the criminal trial transcript, as well as any written assessment of the Higgins claim particulars against Ms Reynolds conducted after the trial? 5. The post-trial legal advice obtained by the Commonwealth has been described by the National Anti-Corruption Commission as not materially differing from advice given in April 2022, before the criminal trial occurred. Can the Department explain how advice assessing the merits of civil claims could remain unchanged after publicly available evidence over the course of 12 days directly contradicting those claims? 6. Could the Department provide any legal advice received after October 2022 that references or engages with the criminal trial transcript, as well as any written assessment of the Higgins claim particulars against Ms Reynolds conducted after this trial? 7. Can the Department confirm that on 13 December 2022, the date of the mediation, Ms Reynolds was not informed of the date, time, or location of the mediation? If so, what was the legal authority for proceeding to mediation affecting her legal rights without this notification? 8. Could the Department provide all communications between the Department, HWLE and Clayton Utz in November and December 2022 regarding the scheduling of the mediation and notification of parties? 9. Was the settlement deed executed on 13 December 2022, seven days after the agreed limitation period extension of 6 December had expired? Had Ms Reynolds declined to extend it further? Did the Commonwealth extend the limitation period after 6 December without Ms Reynolds' authority: if so, under what legal power? 10. Could the Department supply all correspondence regarding the limitation period after 2 December 2022, including any agreement or representation made to Ms Higgins' solicitors about the extension of time? 11. Did Justice Lee find in April 2024 that nine representations in the Higgins claim - incorporated into the Deed - were demonstrably untrue? Of the $2.4 million settlement, what portion was attributable to claims specifically arising from allegations concerning Ms Reynolds' personal conduct, and were those particular claims assessed as having a meaningful prospect of liability before settlement? 12. Could the Department supply any breakdown or apportionment of the settlement amount across the heads of claim, including those specifically relating to Ms Reynolds' personal conduct? 13. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has confirmed the settlement was "less than the maximum amount recommended by external independent legal advice." What was the maximum amount recommended? Was the legal advice recommending that maximum based on an assessment of the Higgins claims that included the particulars Justice Lee subsequently found to be demonstrably untrue? 14. Could the Department supply external legal advice setting out the recommended settlement range, or a summary thereof, along with the factual premises on which the quantum was assessed? 15. Who within the Department of Finance made the decision to make Ms Reynolds' legal assistance approval conditional on the Commonwealth assuming control of her defence, as conveyed in the letter of 6 December 2022? Was this decision made on legal advice? Was any consideration given to the explicit acknowledgment in the 28 June 2022 letter, sent by HWLE on behalf of the government to Ms Reynolds's lawyers, that the Commonwealth could not act for Ms Reynolds and might not insist on terms protecting her interests? 16. Could the Department provide the decision brief, legal advice and internal communications relating to the decision to condition Reynolds' assistance approval on assumption of control? 17. Did Ms Reynolds notify on 25 July 2022 that she intended to personally attend and participate in the mediation? Did the 6 December 2022 letter require her not to attend? Was any consideration given to the fact that excluding a named respondent from a mediation, affecting her legal rights and public reputation, might itself constitute a breach of model litigant obligations? If so, what was the conclusion? 18. Could the Department provide any legal advice or internal assessment of the lawfulness and propriety of excluding Ms Reynolds from the mediation? 19. Was the settlement deed made confidential at Ms Higgins' request? Was Ms Reynolds provided with a copy of the deed? As the entity that assumed control of Ms Reynolds' defence and settled claims against her, how does the Department justify agreeing to confidentiality terms that prevented Ms Reynolds from knowing the terms of a settlement made in her name? 20. Could the Department supply the deed of settlement executed on 13 December 2022? 21. Did Clayton Utz's letter of 9 December 2022 confirm that Ms Reynolds had not agreed to extend the limitation period beyond 6 December 2022? Can the Department confirm that the mediation and settlement occurred after that deadline? If so, please explain: (a) what steps were taken to verify that the claims were not statute-barred; and (b) whether the Commonwealth's settlement of potentially statute-barred claims is consistent with the requirement that settlements be in accordance with legal principle and practice? 22. Can the Department provide legal advice it received regarding the limitation period status of the Higgins claims as at 13 December 2022? 23. Were new claims against Ms Reynolds made on 7 December 2022? Did the Department or HWLE inform Ms Reynolds of those claims before the 13 December mediation? If there were new claims, what is the justification for proceeding to settle new claims against a named respondent six days after those claims were made, without informing the respondent? 24. Could the Department provide all correspondence relating to the new claims made on or about 7 December 2022 and any communications with Ms Reynolds or her solicitors about those claims? 25. With respect to the above questions, please confirm the Department understands it cannot claim legal professional privilege to refuse to answer questions or provide documents to a parliamentary committee. If the Department wishes to decline to provide specific details of legal advice on the basis it would prejudice the public interest, please confirm the Department understands a Minister must formally raise a public interest immunity claim and that the claim must specify the exact harm such disclosure would cause, rather than merely stating the advice is confidential.

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• F141.pdf (opens in a new tab)