URGENT UPDATE: David Sharaz, husband of Brittany Higgins, has been declared bankrupt by the Federal Court in Perth just days after his wife faced a similar ruling. This dramatic turn of events unfolds amidst a bitter legal battle stemming from a high-profile defamation case involving her former boss, Linda Reynolds.
The court’s decision came on December 15, 2025, when Registrar Camille Goucke confirmed Sharaz’s bankruptcy status. He is now required to pay $85,000 following a ruling against him, according to reports from ABC News. The court also mandated that Sharaz’s estate be sequestrated under the bankruptcy act, with additional costs of $5,690 owed.
This latest ruling is a direct consequence of Reynolds’ successful defamation claim against Brittany Higgins, which resulted in an order for her to pay $315,000 in damages, plus $26,109 in interest. Reynolds has indicated that she is now pursuing further damages and legal costs from Higgins, which could exceed $1 million.
In an official statement, Reynolds expressed that Sharaz’s bankruptcy is not a victory for her but rather a reflection of the consequences stemming from Higgins’ inability to meet court-ordered financial obligations. “I was put to the cost of an expensive Supreme Court trial to prove Ms. Higgins egregiously lied about my conduct,” she stated, emphasizing the financial burden she faced in pursuing the case.
The defamation case has its roots in allegations made by Higgins against former colleague Bruce Lehrmann, whom she claims raped her in Reynolds’ ministerial suite in 2019. Lehrmann maintains his innocence and has not been found criminally liable, as a trial in 2022 was aborted due to juror misconduct. However, a Federal Court judge later determined that Lehrmann had raped Higgins on the balance of probabilities, leading to heightened media scrutiny and public interest in their ongoing legal battle.
Higgins has expressed relief following the recent legal decisions, stating, “Finally, it feels like I can breathe again.” She emphasized that the defamation proceedings, while appearing to be against a media outlet, were intrinsically linked to her traumatic experiences.
As this situation continues to develop, all eyes are on how both parties will navigate their financial and legal challenges moving forward. The implications of these rulings are profound, not only for the individuals involved but also for the larger discourse surrounding sexual assault allegations and defamation in Australia.
Stay tuned for further updates on this unfolding story as new developments arise.
