Former Australian Defence Minister Linda Reynolds has secured a significant victory in her defamation case against ex-Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins according to BBC. The Western Australian Supreme Court awarded Reynolds AUD $315,000 in damages plus $26,000 interest over defamatory social media posts.
The Case Details
The case concerns several social media posts made by Higgins between 2022 and 2023 which accuse Reynolds of pressuring Higgins into not pursuing a sexual assault claim.
Justice Paul Tottle ruled that two of the three social media posts were defamatory. As a result, the court awarded Reynolds AUD $315,000 in damages plus interest.
Higgins tried to defend herself under the Australia Defamation Act 2005. She argued the posts were substantially true (section 25), and were her honest opinion (section 31), or were made under qualified privilege (section 30). But the judge ruled that this was only the case for one of the posts whereas two of the posts were found to be defamatory. According to ABC, Higgins filed an appeal in relation to the judgment just last Wednesday (17 September 2025).
English & Welsh vs. Australian Law
Previously, the differences between Australian law in comparison to English & Welsh defamation law were more apparent, however, following reforms made to the Australian law in 2021 and 2024, the procedures have become more similar. Both legal systems now have a serious harm threshold, public interest defences and a single publication rule but differ in how robustly they are enforced.
For example, where English & Welsh law places the burden of proof on the claimant to demonstrate actual or likely serious harm to their reputation, in contrast the Australia law places this burden on the defendant.
Further, the public interest defence under English & Welsh law has been codified since 2013 but was only incorporated in Australian law in 2021 meaning its effect is still in its early stages.
Both legal systems have a single publication rule (preventing an action being brought in relation to publication of the same material by the same publisher after a one-year limitation period from the date of the first publication of that material to the public or a section of the public). Whilst in England & Wales this rule has been in place since 2013, its Australian counterpart was only introduced in 2024. This shows how Australian law continues, somewhat cautiously, to adopt a more consistent approach to defamation law with England & Wales.
Defamation, Social Media and Online Forums
The case serves to demonstrate how, globally, courts treat social media posts with increasing seriousness.
For example, in Monroe v Hopkins [2017], a single tweet by Katie Hopkins defaming food writer Jack Monroe resulted in the High Court ordering Hopkins to pay £24,000 in damages, proving that one tweet can be enough.
In 2023, the High Court in Belfast unmasked an anonymous operator of a website ‘Tattle Life’ as Sebastian Bond and held him liable for posts that defamed entertainers Donna and Neil Sands. The judge awarded £300,000 in damages (£150,000 each) and condemned the site as a platform “making profit out of people’s misery”. The case shows how courts can pierce anonymity when necessary and treat online forums with the same seriousness as established media outlets.
In 2023, following the US defamation trial between President Donald Trump and author E Jean Carroll, the President was ordered to pay $83.3m in damages (£65.6m) to Carroll after defaming her over sexual assault claims on social media. Trump had posted on his own social media platform ‘Truth Social’ in 2022 saying Carroll was a liar, among other claims. The court awarded Carroll the sum of $83.3m included $18.3m in compensation damages for emotional harm and reputational harm and $65m in punitive damages.
Whilst Reynolds’s award of AUD $315,000 (approx. £160,000) is notable, it remains substantially higher than typical UK social media defamation settlements, which often range between £20,000 and £50,000 (see Monroe v Hopkins, £24,000; Miller v Peake [2022], £20,000). However, in other countries like the US these larger sums are more common.
Damages are designed to put the successful party in the position they would have been in had the defamation not occurred. We are seeing an increase in cases arising out of social media as it becomes a more ubiquitous forum. A defamatory comment made online will be treated with the same level of severity as traditional print publications.
All these cases highlight that social media and online platforms are not safe havens. Just as Higgins’s personal posts attracted serious damages in Australia, courts around the world now impose significant penalties on posts made online. Social media and anonymous forum operators (if uncovered) offer no immunity. Courts examine the content and reach of posts, not the platform used.
How can we help at Taylor Hampton?
If you believe you have been defamed, whether by newspaper article, blog post or social media publication, our expert media law team can assist. Please contact us here to make a free enquiry.
Disclaimer: This article provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Civil procedure rules and case law can change. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your specific situation before acting.