Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

true none of us can know the actual events. neither side were...

First 9 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Scott th Ratbag

57,861 Posts.

664

18/07/24

00:09

Post #: 74803155
Share

Originally posted by Parsifal: ↑

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

Expand

true none of us can know the actual events. neither side were suitable witnesses.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

RML

Resolution looks to 'strong historical data' as Horse Heaven search begins

CBA

CBA down as BHP goes up – what's going on, and, will CBA stocks correct?

ASX Market Open: Oz shares dip back (very slightly) after Wed's record close | July 3

Trump chides Powell as Goldman call for calm. The RBA must be nervous

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 016 – FY25 ended up not so bad... but Trump unpause is coming

First 9 Last

SPONSORED BY