David Sharaz, a former journalist, has been declared bankrupt by a federal court in Australia, following a defamation ruling against him and his wife, Brittany Higgins. The court’s decision comes just days after Higgins herself was declared bankrupt in the same court, marking a significant legal and financial setback for the couple.
The bankruptcy proceedings stem from a defamation case initiated by Linda Reynolds, a former Liberal senator, who successfully sued Sharaz and Higgins for defamatory social media posts. In September 2025, the court ordered the couple to pay Reynolds AUD 92,000 in damages, a ruling that has now led to the sequestration of their estates.
The legal troubles for Sharaz and Higgins began in early 2021 when Higgins, a former staffer in Reynolds’ office, publicly accused the senator of mishandling her allegations of sexual assault. The accusations garnered widespread media attention and sparked national conversations about workplace safety and the treatment of women in politics. In response to the allegations, Reynolds filed a defamation suit against the couple, claiming that their statements and social media posts had damaged her reputation.
The court’s ruling in favor of Reynolds was a pivotal moment in the ongoing saga, as it not only affirmed the senator’s claims but also set a precedent regarding the accountability of public figures in the realm of social media. The case highlighted the complexities of defamation law in Australia, particularly in the context of political discourse and personal allegations.
Following the September ruling, Reynolds initiated bankruptcy proceedings against both Sharaz and Higgins in October 2025. The court’s decision to declare Sharaz bankrupt was announced on December 12, 2025, just days after Higgins faced a similar fate. The bankruptcy declarations mean that the couple’s assets will be managed by a trustee, who will oversee the repayment of their debts, including the damages awarded to Reynolds.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the personal financial struggles of Sharaz and Higgins. The case has reignited discussions about the legal protections available to individuals in defamation cases, particularly in the context of social media. Legal experts have noted that the outcome of this case may influence how future defamation claims are handled, especially as more individuals turn to social media to voice their opinions and experiences.
Furthermore, the bankruptcy declarations raise questions about the broader impact on public discourse and the willingness of individuals to speak out against powerful figures. The case has underscored the potential risks associated with making allegations in the public sphere, particularly when those allegations involve prominent political figures.
The timeline of events leading to the bankruptcy declarations began in February 2021, when Higgins first made her allegations against Reynolds. The ensuing media coverage and public debate brought significant attention to the issues of sexual assault and workplace culture in Australian politics. In October 2021, Reynolds filed her defamation suit, which culminated in the September 2025 ruling that found in her favor.
As the legal proceedings continue to unfold, the ramifications for Sharaz and Higgins remain uncertain. The couple’s financial difficulties may hinder their ability to pursue further legal action or to engage in public discourse on the issues that have defined their recent experiences. Additionally, the case serves as a cautionary tale for others who may consider making similar allegations or engaging in public commentary on sensitive topics.
In conclusion, the bankruptcy declarations of David Sharaz and Brittany Higgins mark a significant chapter in a complex legal saga that has captured national attention in Australia. The case not only highlights the challenges of navigating defamation law in the age of social media but also raises important questions about the implications of public discourse and the accountability of individuals in positions of power. As the situation develops, it will be essential to monitor the ongoing discussions surrounding defamation, free speech, and the rights of individuals to speak out against perceived injustices.
