I don’t think it’s about revenge at all. The decision allows Reynolds to know details about the trust account. Who the trustee is, basis for the trust etc. I think it’s a reasonable decision given that the trust was established immediately after the payout yet Higgins is claiming she has assets of around $10,000.
Given the size of the payout and the cost of her house in France (and she hasn’t skimped) that suggests the house too is tied up in the trust. The choice of trust type is a bit weird as well.
given the decision in the channel 10 case Higgins seems to be walking on thin ice. Maybe the reason she has resisted any settlement outside court is because she felt her money was safe and it wouldn’t matter what the decision was. That makes her less than honourable in my book rather than reynolds being vindictive
we all know that different people can have entirely different views about an event. Clearly reynolds view is very different to Higgins. None of us can know the objective truth - if there is any to be found. I imagine they both think they are right. The court will work out which one is more right than the other
