Reynolds Wants Atonement - Apology Not enough, 73487584, page-7 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by trashcansinatra: ↑

So BH frantically released an apology after it was proven she was untruthful about there being any sort of 'cover up'. In fact it was found the Brown was the most trustworthy and believable witness at the most recent defamation trial and her evidence aligned with Sen. Reynolds. The defense did not call Sen. Reynolds as a witness... I wonder why (nah, no I don't, I know exactly why).

Sharaz and BH, sadly for themselves, did not hold much credibility with the presiding Judge, Justice Michael Lee.

So, according to media reports Reynolds will seek not just an apology but a declaration that there was in fact no cover up, a public declaration to put this matter to rest and that it was all lies. She also wants BH to pay her legal fees which I think is a fair outcome. I'd assume her legal fees will top 1 Million bucks by the time BH gets around to the trial date (maybe even $2.4million )

Sharaz, it appears, will be dealt with separately and possibly also have to cough up.

What goes around comes around. So where are the ALP Parliamentarians that supported her and used her prior to the 2022 election now? Why are they so silent?

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/reynolds-to-continue-defamation-action-despite-apology-20240421-p5flhm.html

----------------------------------

While Higgins apologised to Reynolds for the hurt caused by the years-long saga, the former staffer said her “perceptions and feelings about what happened in the days and weeks after my rape” differed from those of Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown. “I hope we can resolve our differences with a better understanding of each other’s experience,” Higgins said.

Reynolds, in a written statement released on Sunday, said she appreciated Higgins’ apology but added she would continue with defamation action against her and her partner, David Sharaz, over statements the couple published on social media.

Reynolds emphasised her legal action was never about the truth of the rape, but rather about claims Reynolds had failed to support Higgins and subjected her to a damaging political cover-up to protect the Coalition from scrutiny.

“My action deals with what Justice Lee exposed as false allegations raised two years after the rape,” Reynolds said.

“At enormous emotional and financial cost, I have fought for three years to expose the truth in relation to my conduct. Looking forward, I welcome Ms Higgins’ olive branch and her commitment to engage with me to reach a resolution.

“What still lies between us are not different perceptions. It is a fact that Ms Higgins received our support and that there was no cover-up.

“If Ms Higgins does not accept Justice Lee’s findings on the claims of cover-up and mistreatment then, regrettably, it will have to be proved again in our trial set for July this year.”

Expand

Your allusion to the propensity of lawyers and plaintiffs to gold plate their legal costs is certainly a valid commentary on the defamation industry. The judge in the initial hearings was so determined for this one to settle that he involved himself in the mediation because he could see the legal costs dwarfing the financial significance of the matter. If Higgins thinks her French assets are vulnerable to Australian court decisions she probably should make an offer to Reynolds of about $100k, along with some kind words about Reynolds integrity. That way, if Reynolds continues to pursue the matter, she'll certainly wear her own costs, and possibly Higgins costs as well even if she happens to win the case.

. Reaper