Brose v Baluskas (No 6)

Link copied
Case Copied 72 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brose v Baluskas & Ors (No 6) [2020] QDC 15

PARTIES:

TRACEY ANN BROSE
(Plaintiff)

v

DONNA JOY BALUSKAS
(First Defendant)

and

MIGUEL BALUSKAS
(Second Defendant)

and

TRUDIE ARNOLD
(Third Defendant)

and

IAN MARTIN
(Fourth Defendant)

and

KERRI ERVIN
(Fifth Defendant)

and

LAURA LAWSON

(Sixth Defendant)

and

CHARMAINE PROUDLOCK
(Seventh Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D148 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATES:


8 October 2019 – 1 November 2019

JUDGE:

Muir DCJ

ORDER:

1. It is ordered that the first defendant pay to the plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $3,000 for publication of the imputations pleaded at paragraphs 11(f),(g) and (h) of the further amended statement of claim filed on 3 October 2019.

2.   It is ordered that the second  defendant pay to the plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $3,000 for publication of the imputations pleaded at paragraph 16(f) and (i) of the further amended statement of claim filed on 3 October  2019.

3. The plaintiff’s claim against the third defendant is dismissed.

4. The plaintiff’s claim against the sixth defendant is dismissed.

5.   The first defendant is permanently restrained by herself, and/ or her servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published any of the matters complained of in paragraphs 11(f) (g) and (h) of the further amended statement of claim filed in these proceedings on 3 October 2019 or matters substantially to the same effect as those matters complained of.

6. The second defendant is permanently restrained by himself, and/or his servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published any of the matters complained of in paragraphs 16(f) and (i) of the further amended statement of claim filed in these proceedings on 3 October 2019 or matters substantially to the same effect as those matters complained of.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION - GENERALLY - INTERNET PUBLICATIONS – SOCIAL MEDIA – where the plaintiff sued in respect of comments made on Facebook and Change.org – where the forums were specifically created to support the plaintiff – where the defendants admit publication – where features of social media are considered – where features of social media are part of the context in which imputations are read

DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION – EXTENT OF PUBLICATION – GRAPEVINE EFFECT whether the grapevine effect arises out of facts – where the publications were available for a limited period of time – where the plaintiff claimed publications had been read by thousands of people – where the evidence did not support a claim that the publications had been widely read – where evidence demonstrated limited grapevine effect – where grapevine effect arises out of media coverage of the proceedings

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATIONS – where the plaintiff sued in respect of comments made on social media– whether alleged imputations are carried by the words of the publication –…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brose v Baluskas (No 6) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] QDC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brose v Baluskas (No 6) was a defamation case in which the plaintiff, a former school principal, sought damages against multiple defendants for comments made on Facebook and Change.org, platforms created to support her. The defendants admitted to publishing the comments, which contained speculative imputations about the circumstances of the plaintiff's suspension. The court was required to decide whether the comments were defamatory, the extent of their publication, and the appropriate level of damages. It also had to consider the defendants' defences of justification, contextual truth, and triviality, as well as the impact of the media coverage and social media "grapevine effect" on the defamation assessment.

The court found that some of the imputations carried by the defendants' comments were defamatory, despite the speculative nature of the comments. It concluded that the comments had not been widely disseminated, limiting the "grapevine effect". The court rejected the defences of justification, contextual truth, and triviality. In assessing damages, the court recognised that the plaintiff's reputation had already suffered due to her suspension and other personal circumstances, and that the defamatory comments were one of multiple factors contributing to her hurt and distress. The court awarded damages of $3,000 to the plaintiff against two defendants, and dismissed her claims against two others.

The court ordered the first defendant to pay $3,000 for defamatory comments made on Facebook, and the second defendant to pay $3,000 for comments made on Change.org. It dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the third and sixth defendants, finding that the evidence did not support her claims against them. The court also issued permanent injunctions against the first and second defendants, prohibiting them from publishing the defamatory comments or matters substantially to the same effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is ordered that the first defendant pay to the plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $3,000 for publication of the imputations pleaded at paragraphs 11(f),(g) and (h) of the further amended statement of claim filed on 3 October 2019.

2. It is ordered that the second defendant pay to the plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $3,000 for publication of the imputations pleaded at paragraph 16(f) and (i) of the further amended statement of claim filed on 3 October 2019.

3. The plaintiff’s claim against the third defendant is dismissed.

4. The plaintiff’s claim against the sixth defendant is dismissed.

5. The first defendant is permanently restrained by herself, and/ or her servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published any of the matters complained of in paragraphs 11(f) (g) and (h) of the further amended statement of claim filed in these proceedings on 3 October 2019 or matters substantially to the same effect as those matters complained of.

6. The second defendant is permanently restrained by himself, and/or his servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published any of the matters complained of in paragraphs 16(f) and (i) of the further amended statement of claim filed in these proceedings on 3 October 2019 or matters substantially to the same effect as those matters complained of.

Background

Background to the litigation

Factual Background The plaintiff and her husband (who is also a teacher at the school) and their three children reside at Mount Tamborine which at the time had a population of about 7000. The Brose family have lived in the area for 20 years and are well known in the local community. The children attend the School. The plaintiff is the holder of a Bachelor of Science and a Graduate Diploma in teaching which she completed in 1989. She has been employed as a teacher by the Department of Education since 1990. The plaintiff taught at a number of locations including Emerald, Capella, Kilcoy, Toowoomba Macgregor and Murgon before becoming the principal of the School in approximately 2000. In 2016, approximately 850 students attended the School and there were 110 teachers.[8] The deputy principals at the School in 2016 were Rosemary Falconer, Jackie Anderson and Graeme Locastro. They were all called by the plaintiff and gave evidence on her behalf at the trial.[8]There are now 140 teachers at the School and 1,020 current students. The plaintiff’s contribution to her local community is impressive and recognised by her receipt of a number of awards. In 2002, she was awarded the Scenic Rim Australian of the Year for her work “in turning Tamborine Mountain State High School around and setting a foundation for a good school.”[9] In 1994, she was awarded the Queenslander of the Year Telecom Environmental Award and in the same year she was also awarded the Australian of the Year Telecom Environmental Award. In 2008, the plaintiff was awarded the International Women’s Day Award for South East Queensland for her work in mentoring and working with aspiring leaders. The plaintiff also held community roles as a member of the local Zonta Group from 2002 until 2009 and is currently a member of the Mount Tamborine Chamber of Commerce.[10][9]Transcript 1-25, ll 42 to 44.[10]Transcript 1-25 to 1.26. On 15 February 2016, the plaintiff received a letter from the Department of Education telling her that she was suspended immediately from her role as the principal of the School while allegations into alleged inappropriate conduct whilst employed as principal at the School were being investigated.[11] The plaintiff first knew of the allegations in December 2015.[12] [11]Exhibit 18. [12]Exhibit 19 – the letter of 8 March 2016 from the Department of Education refers to this fact. The letter of 15 February relevantly stated:[13]“During the course of your suspension, you are directed not to enter any departmental school site, unless you have sought and obtained the prior approval of your departmental contact. Further, you are directed not to contact any students or staff of the Department during the course of your suspension, without first obtaining permission from your departmental contact [Mr Alan Jones]. This direction includes, but is not limited to, verbal / physical contact and the use of electronic communications/ social networking mediums.” [13]Ibid at page 2.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.