David Sharaz is seen hugging Brittany Higgins outside their new French home as Bruce Lehrmann’s libel trial ends with wild theories about what really happened that night at Parliament House

Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz are adjusting to their new lives in France after leaving Australia behind, as the couple cuddle outside their rustic chateau.

The pair both wore blue down jackets, while Mr Sharaz also wore a cream-coloured scarf, to brave the gloomy weather in the village of Lunas on Friday evening local time, where they plan to settle in newfound anonymity 17,000km from their former house.

When Ms Higgins arrived at the property in their dark-coloured rental Volvo, Mr Sharaz rushed outside to meet her, hugging her before escorting her inside.

Their move to Europe follows five years of intense scrutiny after Ms Higgins alleged she was raped at Parliament House in 2019, sparking back-to-back court cases.

The latest case is the defamation lawsuit brought by the man she accused of sexual assault — former Liberal colleague Bruce Lehrmann — which concluded in federal court this week.

Higgins and Sharaz bought the five-bedroom property in the sleepy village of fewer than 600 inhabitants in the Dordogne region of southern France following Higgins’ taxpayer-funded $2.4 million compensation.

The purchase – the house has a gazebo and a large swimming pool for entertaining and is worth an estimated $600,000 – has the town abuzz with talk of “the Australians”, the local mayor told media on Wednesday.

After flying out of Brisbane earlier this week, the couple traveled through Singapore, where Mrs Higgins posted on social media: “No matter how far or how wide I wander, I still call Australia home,” before arriving on the 4, 5 star Sheraton Bordeaux Airport. Hotel.

They were spotted holding hands on Thursday as they took their cavoodle Kingston and cat Clover out of quarantine at Bordeaux-Merigniac airport.

Mr Sharaz told the waiting media that the couple were excited to move into their new home with their pets at Christmas, adding that he was also looking forward to doing some mowing, referring to the castle’s overgrown grounds.

The couple’s move coincides with the conclusion of Lehrmann’s defamation case this week against Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10, which first exposed Higgins’ claims.

Mr Lehrmann has consistently denied the allegations and said his reputation has been significantly damaged.

As the case draws to a close and Judge Michael Lee ponders his ruling over the summer holidays, Ms Wilkinson’s legal adviser, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, comes up with a wild theory about why Ms Higgins was found naked by security that night.

The lawyer suggested Ms Higgins could have taken off her cocktail dress because there had been a “kind of freak heatwave” in Canberra that evening and the air conditioning in Parliament House had “broken down”.

Her sarcastic theory – the temperature in Canberra that night at the airport was a mild 16.7 degrees Celsius – was intended to convince Judge Lee that the only rational explanation for her undressing was “that sex was taking place”.

The criminal trial against Mr Lehrmann was halted due to juror misconduct and a subsequent retrial was called off due to concerns about Ms Higgins’ mental health, leaving no judicial verdict on what happened that night.

The result is that it is up to Judge Lee to determine whether Wilkinson and Network 10’s report is covered by a truth defense and whether, on the balance of probabilities, an assault occurred.

His task will be tough as Judge Lee previously told the court that parts of the evidence from both Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann in the trial cannot be relied on.

“The two main witnesses have real credit problems and several parts of each witness’s evidence simply cannot be accepted,” Judge Lee said.

Ten’s barrister Matthew Collins QC agreed with the comments.

He added: ‘In relation to both key players, we will seek to convince Your Honor that there was a qualitative difference between Mr Lehrmann’s dishonesty and the successful credit attacks directed against Ms Higgins.’

“Mr. Lehrmann turned out to be a fundamentally dishonest man who was willing to say and do anything he believed would further his interests,” Dr. Collins argued.

“He was completely unconcerned with providing the court with a fair account of the events of March 22 and 23, 2019.”

According to both parties, they went to Parliament House together after hours, but their stories about what happened in the office of their then boss Senator Linda Reynolds – where there was no CCTV – differ.

Mr Lehrmann’s legal counsel has argued that Ms Higgins made up the rape claims in a moment of panic after waking up in her boss’s office after a night of partying.

According to Gibbs Wright Lawyers, in a defamation case: “The defendant bears the responsibility of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the defamatory allegations arising from the publication complained of are true, or substantially true.”

“This is because the law of defamation presumes the publication to be false until a defense of the truth has been raised and proven.”

Judge Lee will have to determine whether Network 10 and Wilkinson’s claims are covered by a truth defense, in which case they will not have to pay anything.

If he finds that this is not the case, significant damages and legal costs may be awarded to Mr. Lehrmann.

Yet Network Ten and Wilkinson argue that the segment was a matter of public interest and its preparation was reasonable, and should therefore fall under qualified privilege and not be liable for damages.

However, there is also another scenario, in which Judge Lee finds that Mr. Lehrmann was not identifiable from The Project’s interview with Ms. Higgins.

If this is established, the case will be over with nothing being found one way or the other about the events of that night.

Justice Lee is expected to issue a ruling early next year.