In a rational world, the defamation dispute between Linda Reynolds and Brittany Higgins would be settled out of court with a face-saving compromise.
In this case, the cost of compromise would far exceed the fortune in legal fees confronting these women during a court case.
This case is about conflicting and irreconcilable narratives. Money comes a far second to a goal of using the courts to shape reality.
Higgins and her boyfriend, David Sharaz, have long made the case that she received inadequate support from Reynolds over an ¬allegation of sexual assault.
Reynolds, supported by her former chief of staff, Fiona Brown, has disputed that and is furious at being trolled on social media by those who support the Higgins narrative.
On one level, this case is about postings on social media by Higgins and Sharaz., but both sides have entered this fray weighed down with baggage that will make compromise extremely unlikely.
Their warchests are full: Higgins has $2.4m in taxpayers’ money handed to her by the Albanese government in response to her untested narrative.
Reynolds has just received $90,000 from the government of the ACT to settle a defamation dispute over allegations that had been made by Shane Drumgold, the territory’s former top ¬prosecutor.
That settlement – and the accompanying apology – is just the latest move in the slow-moving campaign by Reynolds to shake off what she must perceive as the grime of the Higgins affair.
After a very slow start, she is making headway.
The ACT’s settlement comes after Drumgold, during Walter Sofronoff’s inquiry, retracted his earlier assertions about political interference in the aborted criminal trial over Higgins’s allegation of sexual assault.
One by one, these moves are starting to look like a significant challenge to the narrative of Higgins and her supporters.
A compromise with Reynolds would be yet another blow to the Higgins narrative. And that is why this young woman, and her partner, are unlikely to do a deal and apologise.
A backdown at this stage would inevitably cause more ¬people to question the justification for that $2.4m payout.
For her part, Reynolds has plenty of baggage of her own. She has walked away from a political career in which politicians on both side of parliament simply accepted the Higgins allegations before they had been tested.
This is not the first time these women have resorted to defamation. Remember when Rey¬nolds called Higgins a “lying cow” and finished up paying her former staffer’s costs and making a donation to charity?
If this case goes to court, which looks likely, there can be only one winner. One of these narratives is unlikely to survive.