Dalas v White; White v Dalas

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DEFAMATION LIST

Case No. CI-23-01207

CHRISTINE DALAS	Plaintiff
v
GARY THORNTON WHITE	Defendant

-and-

Case No. CI-24-03438

GARY THORNTON WHITE	Plaintiff
v
CHRISTINE DALAS	Defendant
JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CLAYTON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26. 27, 28, 29 November and 2 December 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dalas v White; White v Dalas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1410

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---

Subject:DEFAMATION
Catchwords:
White Proceeding: Limitation period – whether irremediable harm caused by failure to plead limitation defence – whether leave should be granted to amend defence – whether extension of time can be granted.
Whether plaintiff identified – extrinsic facts – whether all imputations conveyed attach to plaintiff – whether imputations conveyed are true – qualified privilege reply to attack.

Dalas Proceeding: Serious harm – whether plaintiff can rely on multiple publications of same defamatory matter to establish serious harm – whether serious harm needs to be established for each imputation – whether imputations were expression of honest opinion – qualified privilege reply to attack – where defendant was attacker – assessment of damages – aggravated damages where defendant relied on truth defence after receiving information that the allegation was not true – where defendant motivated by malice – injunction where defendant has demonstrated unwillingness to comply with terms of intervention order – where defendant has published over seventy posts about plaintiff.

Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (Qld); Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s10AA
Cases Cited:ACN 074 971 109 & Anor v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [2010] VSC 186
Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
Ahmed v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 676
Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited (2010) 241 CLR 79
Andersen v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Andersen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 358
Andreyevich v Kosovich & Publicity Press (1938) Pty Ltd (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 357
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bazzi v Dutton (2022) 289 FCR 1
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183
Bjelke-Petersen v Warburton [1987] 2 Qd R 465
Bowen v Hall (1881) 6 QBD 333
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 351
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras & Ors [2002] NSWCA 202
Christiansen v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] NSWSC 1258
Cush v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298
Daldy v McLaughlin [2020] VSC 808
David Syme & Co Ltd v Lloyd [1984] 3 NSWLR 346
Echo Publications Pty Ltd v Tucker [2007] NSWCA 73
Han v Australian Kung Fu (Wu Shu) Federation Inc [2011] VSC 498
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad (2012) 247 CLR 31
Kasic v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1964] VR 702
Kelly v Burston (No. 2) [2021] NSWDC 794
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116
KSG Investments Pty Ltd v Openmarkets Online Trading Pty Ltd [No 2] [2020] VSC 213
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Massoud v Radio 2GB Sydney Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Ltd; Massoud v Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nine Digital Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 336
McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485
McMahon v Watkinson [2014] VSC 123
MG v PJ [2025] QCA 99
Mond v The Age Company Pty Limited [2025] FCA 442
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
Noonan v MacLennan [2010] 2 Qd R 537
Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] QSC 192
Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175
Prouten v Buxton [2024] NSWDC 182
Qu v Wilks [2023] VSCA 198
Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1
Selkirk v Wyatt (2024) 302 FCR 541
Steel v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348
Webster v Brewer (No 3) [2020] FCA 1343
Wookey v Quigley (No 2) [2010] WASC 209
Wraydeh v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited; Wraydeh v Nationwide News Pty Limited (2021) 105 NSWLR 254
Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 570

Judgment: In proceeding number CI-23-01207, Dalas v White:

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant to pay the amount of $100,000 in damages to the plaintiff. Defendant permanently restrained from further publication of any of the defamatory imputations conveyed by the matters complained of.
In proceeding number CI-24-03438, White v Dalas:
Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Christine Dalas	…	Matt Awad, M Joseph & Associates
For Gary Thornton White	Ms P Wakhlu	David Joseph & Co Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1The parties sue each other in defamation.
2Christine Dalas says Gary Thorton White published six publications which were defamatory of her and which caused her reputation serious harm. I will identify these as “the Dalas publications”.
3Mr White says Ms Dalas published two publications which were defamatory of him. I will identify these as “the White publications”. He does not need to prove they caused him serious harm, as the date of publication was prior to the introduction of the serious harm element of the tort of defamation, on 1 July 2021.

Orders
4For the reasons that follow, I make these Orders:
5In the matter of Dalas v White, proceeding number CI-23-01207:
(a)   Judgment is entered for the plaintiff;
(b)   The defendant is to pay the amount of $100,000 in damages, including aggravated damages, to the plaintiff;
(c)   The defendant is permanently restrained from further publication of any of the defamatory imputations pleaded in the matters complained of;
(d)   I will hear the parties on the questions of interest and costs.
6In the matter of White v Dalas, proceeding number CI-24-03438:
(a)   The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed;
(b)   I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

Background facts
7During the trial, various witnesses gave evidence about other people who were not called to give evidence. Many of those other people had interacted with the guardianship or trustee systems in different states. During the trial, allegations were made about the conduct of some of those other people. I have applied a pseudonym to those people who were named but who were not witnesses. There is no public interest in those persons being identified.
8In 2017, Ms Dalas, an accountant by training, founded a group called Australian Association to Stop Guardianship & Administration Abuse (“AASGAA”). She had an interest in guardianship and administration matters through personal experience involving a family member.
9AASGAA provided support and advocacy to people who found themselves involved in guardianship and administration issues.
10Ms Dalas said that the primary focus of AASGAA was to raise awareness of guardianship and administration abuses, and to do this by establishing rapport with the media. She said she was not against the guardianship system but was an advocate for reform, particularly around the way hearings in guardianship matters were run. In her view, providing support to families and carers should be a first resort, rather than a last resort.
11Her advocacy work included helping people fill out forms, accompanying people to tribunal hearings and providing step by step guidance through the guardianship process.
12AASGAA is based in Victoria and, through its Facebook page, quickly became a prominent advocacy group, with around 2,500 members. Ms Dalas said the purpose of the Facebook group was to connect “victims” Australia-wide to share stories, network and connect with journalists who had an interest in the issues.
13In particular, from about 2019, she and other AASGAA members engaged with executives from the Four Corners program on ABC TV, with a view to participating in a program about guardianship and administration matters.
14In July 2019, AASGAA held a conference in Queensland (“the Queensland conference”).
15Mr White, a retired manager and investor, also had an interest in guardianship and administration issues. He had assisted a friend, “M”, in a legal proceeding related to guardianship. In May 2017, he set up a personal Facebook page related to these issues. He attended the Queensland conference and met Ms Dalas in person for the first time.
16At the Queensland conference, Mr White also met another woman, “CC”, and offered her financial assistance to find her daughter, who was under a guardianship order and whose whereabouts were unknown to CC.
17In August 2019, Mr White set up a public advocacy and support group and a Facebook page called “NSW Trustee & Guardian Client Abuse” (“the NSW Facebook page”). Unlike AASGAA, which did not offer any financial support, Mr White said he provided financial assistance to people in a variety of ways. This included financing legal claims through the courts, and providing funds to locate family members.
18Although initially both Ms Dalas and Mr White appear to have had similar aims, within a few months they had had a falling out.
19The precise details of that falling out are not relevant, save that Mr White disclosed to Ms Dalas over a number of texts and emails[1] his concerns that people were making false allegations against him. In particular, he told Ms Dalas CC had falsely accused him of “making moves” on her.
[1]Court Book (“CB”) 2921-2937
20In September 2019, Ms Dalas had a conversation with CC, who made a number of allegations about Mr White’s conduct towards her, including that he had “put the hard word on (her)” and she had rejected his advances.
21On 29 September 2019, Mr White attended an AASGAA conference in Paramatta. At that conference, Mr White told delegates that CC and another woman, “DA”, had made allegations about him.
22In November 2019, Mr White and Ms Dalas spoke on the telephone. During that call, Mr White told Ms Dalas that another woman, “JM”, had accused him of making advances on her.[2]
[2]CB 2978
23Mr White denied all these allegations.
24Ms Dalas said, after hearing of additional allegations, she formed the view that she did not want to personally interact with Mr White any longer. She removed Mr White from her phone contact list.
25In mid-December 2019, Mr White emailed another member of AASGAA, to say that his Facebook page was “suffering from trolling” and that he had been told by one of the people responsible for the trolling that “Christine Dallas [sic] told her to do it”.[3]
[3]CB 2940
26This allegation came to Ms Dalas’ attention. Ms Dalas contacted Mr White to say the allegation was false and defamatory, and that her primary and only concern was AASGAA. She told Mr White that it was best he deal directly with another member of AASGAA going forward.
27By this point, Ms Dalas had decided she no longer wanted to have anything more to do with Mr White.
28In 2019, Therese Zuanetti’s mother was placed under a guardianship order. Her mother subsequently died, and there was resultant publicity in the Queensland media. Ms Zuanetti went onto YouTube to seek assistance.
29On 17 December 2019, Mr White contacted Ms Zuanetti and offered her financial assistance to litigate in relation to her mother’s death. Ms Zuanetti spoke with Mr White a few times on the phone but declined the offer of financial assistance.
30In August 2020, Ms Zuanetti was contacted by a woman, “RP”, who suggested she meet with Mr White. Ms Zuanetti said the purpose of the meeting was to start a website. Mr White said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms Zuanetti running community hall meetings, for which he had offered to pay to hire small halls and amplifier systems.
31On 29 August 2020, Mr White met with Ms Zuanetti, RP, and another person at a coffee shop in Southport, Queensland. RP and the other person left the coffee shop before the meeting concluded. At the end of the meeting, Ms Zuanetti walked to a nearby supermarket. Mr White walked in the same direction.
32On 13 September 2020, Ms Dalas removed and blocked Mr White, along with about 28 others,[4] from the AASGAA Facebook group.
[4]CB 2565
33On 15 September 2020, Ms Dalas posted on the AASGAA Facebook page that “In the last few days we have had to block a series of trolls personally attacking various AASGAA advocates”. In that post she said no AASGAA members deserved public trolling or bullying, nor to be sent threatening messages. She said that the core group of AASGAA had never met one of the people blocked. She said though opinions will vary about how to deal with guardianship issues, advocates were “all on the same journey. It[’]s not a competition. But threats, private stalking and/or troublemakers will not be tolerated! We block for a very good reason.”
34On 21 September 2020, Mr White posted on his NSW Facebook page:
“I wish to inform readers that AASGAA has removed both JS and I as members of its group. Neither of us were notified as to why this was done. It just happened and I have been blocked from viewing AASGAA’s Facebook. I am well aware of having been accused of spying on behalf of NSW Trustee and Guardian … but that is just childish nonsense emanating from a person who should have known a lot better.”[5]
[5]CB 1182
35On 9 November 2020, Ms Zuanetti posted a response to Mr White on the AASGAA Facebook page under the handle “Therese Therese”.
36In a comment to the Therese Therese post, Ms Dalas posted the first publication upon which Mr White sues.
37On 9 May 2021, Ms Dalas sent Mr White an email in which she said:
“It has come to our attention that your website includes references to AASGAA that are misleading and incorrect …
…

For that reason we request references and inferred associations to AASGAA be removed from your website. AASGAA takes its links and associations with credible groups and individuals seriously. We strongly oppose misleading links and false associations that discredit our credibility and widely gained trust.
I hope you understand our reasoning and will assist in this matter.”[6]
[6]CB 2946

[emphasis in original.]
38The email included a link and a screenshot from the website “nswtrusteeand guardianclientabuse.com” which read:
“AASGAA is a relatively newly formed group which only came on the radar back in 2018. The group is based in Melbourne but quickly gained considerable support and backing in south-eastern QLD after availing itself of the professional skills and services of Gold Coast marketing manager (MW).”[7]
[7]CB 2946
39On 12 May 2021, Mr White posted on his NSW Facebook page that AASGAA was holding a public rally in Sydney but that “AASGAA has notified NSW Trustee and Guardian Client Abuse that it does not want the NSW group to associate itself in any way with AASGAA’s activities”.[8]
[8]CB 2600
40On 14 May 2021, Ms Dalas, as a representative of AASGAA, attended the Sydney rally. Mr White did not attend the rally but says he observed from a distance because Ms Dalas had “made it clear that he was not welcome”.[9]
[9]CB 2946
41On 23 May 2021, Ms Dalas posted the second publication on which Mr White sues.
42On 15 October 2021, Ms Dalas was interviewed on a podcast which was broadcast on “TS Radio”. The host was a US woman and activist, Marti Oakley. The title of the podcast was “Totalitarianism under the guise of protecting us”.
43On 17 November 2021, Ms Dalas obtained an interim intervention order against Mr White, prohibiting him from publishing material about her.
44In March 2022, Mr White launched a website called Australian Public Trustee and Guardian Injustices Exposed (“APTAGIE”).
45On 14 March 2022, ABC Four Corners broadcast a program called “State Control” about guardianship and trustee issues. Ms Dalas was interviewed on this program.
46Between 16 March 2022 and 22 November 2022, Mr White published the six publications on which Ms Dalas sues.
47On 10 December 2021, Mr White commenced proceedings for defamation against Ms Dalas in Queensland.
48In January 2023, Ms Dalas shut down the AASGAA Facebook page.
49On 21 March 2023, Ms Dalas commenced proceedings for defamation against Mr White in this Court. The White proceedings were eventually transferred to this Court and the two matters were heard concurrently.

MR WHITE’S CLAIM
Mr White’s issues
50The issues in Mr White’s claim are:
(a) In relation to the first White publication, was Mr White’s proceeding issued out of time? If so:
(i)Should Ms Dalas be granted leave to amend her Defence to plead the expiration of the limitation period? If so:
(ii)Can Mr White be granted an extension of time?

(b)   In relation to the second White publication, has Mr White established publication?
(c)   Has Mr White established he was identified in the second White publication?
(d)   What defamatory imputations about Mr White were conveyed by the second White publication?
(e)   Does Ms Dalas have any defence?
(i)Were any of the imputations conveyed about Mr White true?
(ii)Were any of the imputations conveyed about Mr White published on an occasion of qualified privilege?

First White publication – Is Mr White’s claim in relation to the first White publication statute barred?

51Mr White did not issue his proceeding within one year of the date the first White publication was first uploaded and read.
Was Mr White’s proceeding issued out of time?
52Mr White says the first White publication was published on or about 9 November 2020. He issued his proceeding in Queensland on 10 December 2021.
53Section 10AA of the Queensland Limitation of Actions Act 1974 provided, at that time:
“An action on a cause of action for defamation must not be brought after the end of 1 year from the date of the publication of the matter complained of.”
54Section 32A of that legislation provided:
“32A Defamation Actions
(1)A person claiming to have a cause of action for defamation may apply to the court for an order extending the limitation period for the cause of action.
(2)A court must, if satisfied that it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action in relation to the matter complained of within 1 year from the date of the publication, extend the limitation period mentioned in section 10AA to a period of up to 3 years from the date of the publication.
(3)A court may not order the extension of the limitation period for a cause of action for defamation other than in the circumstances specified in subsection (2).
(4)An order for the extension of a limitation period, and an application for an order for the extension of a limitation period, may be made under this section even though the limitation period has already ended.”

55The legislation required the Court to extend the time for defamation proceedings where it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced the action within time, but not otherwise.
56The first White publication predated amendments to the legislation, which established that publication occurs at the time the matter complained of is first downloaded and read. Prior to this amendment, publication occurred on each occasion the matter complained of was downloaded and read by a new person.

57The first White publication was posted by Ms Dalas as a comment to the Therese Therese post, on the AASGAA Facebook page.
58Mr White had been blocked from the AASGAA Facebook page on 13 September 2020.
59The public Facebook page is no longer in operation. A screenshot of the Therese Therese post, the first White publication, and the other comments on the post, were annexed to the White Further Amended Statement of Claim. The comments are not dated, but are located in time by reference to the (unknown) date of the screenshot. Each of the comments was posted 48 or 49 weeks before the screenshot, within one or two weeks of the post itself. Extrapolating from this, the visible comments were posted within the period 9 November 2020 to 22 November 2020. After the last comment, there are the words “commenting has been turned off for this post”.
60Mr White gave evidence that he became aware of the first White publication in July 2021. Mr White said that, upon becoming aware of the first White publication, he immediately took it to his solicitor. He had already consulted his solicitor in June 2021, when he became aware of the second publication he sues on, a publication by Ms Dalas on 23 May 2021, on the AASGAA Facebook page. Mr White said he was advised by his (then) solicitor to seek specialist advice from a solicitor experienced in defamation.
61He consulted solicitor, Christopher Hannay of Hannay Lawyers, in about July 2021.
62I accept Mr White’s evidence about the timing of his becoming aware of the first White publication because:
(a)   It is apparent from his own and other evidence that Mr White is a litigious person who would readily seek legal advice for any perceived slight;
(b)   He had already consulted a lawyer in relation to the second White publication, and it is likely he would have brought the first White publication to the attention of his lawyer, immediately upon becoming aware of it.
63If Mr White can establish that the first White publication was read, for the first time, by someone after 10 December 2020, then, in accordance with the law as it was at that time, he is not out of time.
64There was no direct evidence that the first White publication was downloaded and read after 10 December 2020. Mr White says this is because Ms Dalas did not raise the limitation period until 9 November 2024. By that time, his witnesses could not recall when they had first seen the first White publication.
65Mr White called two lay witnesses. Effie Benatos-Rogers gave no evidence of having seen the first or second White publications. She was aware, in general terms, that Mr White was suing Ms Dalas. She described herself as “very disappointed” and said that God would bring out the truth and those prone to deception would be exposed. She said she had never seen Ms Dalas’ comments about Mr White.
66Gloria Holland gave evidence that she did not have anything to do with the AASGAA group, has never had anything to do with them and does not know anything about AASGAA. She was not asked whether she had seen the first or second White publication. I can infer that she had not, given her evidence that she had nothing to do with AASGAA, and her evidence that she did not know “fully” what Ms Dalas had said about Mr White. She said she thought Ms Dalas had said something about being in fear for her life, and that Mr White was stalking and harassing her. She commented on a post by Mr White on the NSW Facebook page. Mr White’s post dealt extensively with the allegations he claimed Ms Dalas had made about him in the second White publication.
67Neither of these witnesses had seen the first White publication after 10 December 2020, or at any time.
68Mr White concedes that the inferential evidence that the first White publication was published to one or more persons in Queensland between 10 December 2020 and 10 December 2021 is “slight”, but says the Court should draw an inference that the matter was published, in that period, to the person who provided Mr White with a copy of the screenshot in or around July 2021.
69I do not accept that such an inference is open on the evidence.
70The first White publication was published as a comment on a post on the AASGAA Facebook page. The nature of the AASGAA Facebook page, and Facebook pages more generally, is that posts move down the page as new material is posted. Unless a viewer deliberately scrolls down into the “back catalogue” of posts, or undertakes a search for a particular post, or unless a post is “pinned” so as to ensure it stays at the top of the landing page, an individual post will move off the landing page, as further material is posted. During 2020 and 2021, there were regular posts to the AASGAA Facebook page, which means the first White publication moved off the landing page relatively rapidly. It was not “pinned”.
71The Therese Therese post itself was commented on 21 times, but there were no comments after, at the latest, 22 November 2020. The likelihood that a post would be read once it moved from the landing page, diminishes significantly. The likelihood that a comment on a post will be read is already lower than the likelihood that the post will be read, and diminishes further with the passage of time. If a week is a long time in politics, a month is an eternity on a busy Facebook page.
72The more likely inference available from the fact that the first White publication was provided to Mr White in July 2021, some eight or nine months after it was uploaded, is that the person who provided it to Mr White had seen it at or around the time it was uploaded and, because of that, was able to locate it and provide it to Mr White at a later time.
73I am not satisfied that there is an inference available that the first White publication was published, in the relevant sense, on a date between 10 December 2020 and 10 December 2021.
74Accordingly, Mr White is out of time in relation to the first White publication.
Should Ms Dalas be granted leave to amend her Defence to rely on the expiration of the limitation period?
Is there irremediable prejudice to Mr White?
75Mr White says allowing Ms Dalas to rely on a limitation defence at this stage in the proceeding will cause serious and irremediable prejudice to Mr White because:
(a)   the Facebook group where the post was published has been deleted, preventing him from taking any steps to identify who this matter was published to after 10 December 2020; and
(b)   raising the defence at such a late stage has prevented him from obtaining evidence from witnesses that they had seen the first White publication after 10 December 2020.
76Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University[10] established that late amendment to pleadings which would result in delay of the proceedings, could cause prejudice that was not curable by an order for costs. An application for leave to amend a pleading should not be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim and that any harm caused by the amendment can be compensated by an appropriate costs order. The rules of court procedure recognise that delay and costs are undesirable and that delay has a deleterious effect, not only on the parties, but to other litigants. In some cases, delay causes prejudice that cannot be remediated and an amendment should not be allowed.
[10](2009) 239 CLR 175 (“Aon”)
77In this case, the amendment would not cause delay; however, it was submitted that allowing the amendment would cause Mr White prejudice, because he had lost an opportunity to prove publication of the matter after 10 December 2020.
78Comments on the post were turned off at some point prior to October 2021, when the screenshot was taken; however, there were no comments after 22 November 2020. Raising the defence earlier would not have assisted Mr White in identifying whether anyone had read the post after 10 December 2020, because there were no comments after that time.
79Mr White gave evidence that he discussed the first White publication with another person, known as “JS”. JS had also been blocked from the AASGAA Facebook page around the same time as Mr White, but Mr White said JS accessed the Facebook page through a friend’s computer and read the first publication in or about July 2021. Mr White could have called JS to give evidence of publication after 10 December 2020. The fact that he did not call or seek to subpoena JS raises an inference that JS’s evidence would not have been helpful. JS’s absence was unexplained.
80When asked who had provided him with a copy of the first White publication, Mr White said it was provided to him by people connected with “the NSW Facebook group”. He would not name any of those people and did not call any of those people to give evidence. He did not say those people were unavailable. There were people, known to Mr White, who could have given evidence about when they first saw the first White publication.
81Mr White has not established that the late application to amend the Defence to plead the expiration of the limitation period has caused him irremediable prejudice, because he has not established that he could not find anyone to say they had seen the first White publication after 10 December 2020. He did not call people who may have been able to give that evidence. Nor has he established that there were people who had seen the first White publication but could not recall when, so as to establish the prejudice he claims. The two witnesses he called had not seen the publication.
82I am not persuaded that there is irremediable prejudice to Mr White, in allowing Ms Dalas leave to rely on the expiration of the limitation period in relation to the first White publication.
Do the interests of justice favour granting Ms Dalas leave?
83The lack of irremediable prejudice does not necessarily mean Ms Dalas should be granted leave to amend her pleading.
84Granting leave to amend is discretionary, and consideration must be given to case management principles and the efficient use of court resources.[11] The explanation for the delay is relevant. An omission or oversight, whilst unfortunate, is not fatal to an application to amend.[12]
[11]Daldy v McLaughlin [2020] VSC 808
[12]KSG Investments Pty Ltd v Openmarkets Online Trading Pty Ltd [No 2] [2020] VSC 213
85The pleadings are not an end in themselves, but are rather a means of ensuring that real issues of controversy are raised for determination, in a way that is procedurally fair. Absent extraordinary circumstances, or the sort of actual prejudice identified in Aon, leave to amend will usually be granted.[13]
[13]ACN 074 971 109 & Anor v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [2010] VSC 186 applied in Daldy at [36]
86The soonest Ms Dalas could have pleaded the expiry of the limitation period would have been when she filed her Defence on 11 April 2023. Mr White did not attempt to serve Ms Dalas until November 2022, nearly twelve months after the proceeding was issued. Ms Dalas was not provided with the Statement of Claim until January 2023. By consent she was not required to file a defence until April 2023, after the provision of further particulars.
87The Statement of Claim, served in January 2023, pleaded that Hannay Lawyers had delivered “a Concerns Notice pursuant to s12A of the Act”. “The Act” is defined as the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).This would ordinarily be assumed to mean the Act in operation at the time the proceeding was filed. If an earlier version of the legislation was relied on, that legislation should be specifically identified in the pleading.
88It is apparent that, in error, Mr White was attempting to bring his proceeding under the Act in operation as at 10 December 2021. Reference to s12A must be to that legislation, as the former Defamation Act 2005 did not contain s12A. Mr White pleads that the “Defamatory Publications, taken alone or together, create a serious harm to [Mr] White’s reputation as contemplated by section 10A of the Act”. Again, this must be a reference to the legislation in operation after 10 December 2021 and not the former, operative legislation, which did not contain s10A and did not establish serious harm as an element of the tort.
89In her Defence filed 11 April 2023, Ms Dalas admitted that she published the first White publication on 9 November 2020. She otherwise denied or did not admit most of the allegations in the Statement of Claim and pleaded defences of truth, honest opinion, common law qualified privilege, statutory qualified privilege and public interest.
90On 7 February 2024, Mr White filed an Amended Statement of Claim to correct the spelling of Ms Dalas’ name.
91On 26 September 2024, Mr White filed a Further Amended Statement of Claim, in which he defined “the Act” as “the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) as it applied immediately prior to 1 July 2021”.
92Ms Dalas filed a Defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim on 23 October 2024. She did not raise the limitation defence.
93On 8 November 2024, Ms Dalas sought leave to file an Amended Defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim. In that Amended Defence, she sought to rely on the expiration of the limitation period for the first time.
94The trial commenced on 18 November 2024, and the question of whether leave ought to be granted for Ms Dalas to rely on her amended pleading was raised on that date. I reserved my decision on the question of whether such leave should be granted on the basis that it was not apparent to me, and would not be apparent until I heard evidence in the trial, whether Mr White was out of time in relation to the first White publication.
95I have determined that he was out of time in relation to the first White publication, and there is no irremediable prejudice in allowing Ms Dalas to amend her pleading. I now consider whether the circumstances favour the exercise of the discretion in favour of Ms Dalas.
96The purpose of a limitation period is generally to ensure cases are brought to court before relevant evidence is lost, to avoid oppression to a defendant, to enable parties to arrange affairs and utilise resources and to settle disputes as quickly as possible.[14]
[14]Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
97However, in defamation matters, the limitation period is deliberately short to reflect the public interest in the speedy resolution of those actions,[15] and as a warning to parties to act promptly.[16]
[15]        Noonan v MacLennan & Anor [2010] 2 Qd R 537
[16]Wookey v Quigley (No 2) [2010] WASC 209 at [82]
98Mr White acted promptly once he became aware of the first White publication by consulting his solicitor. However, he did not act promptly in filing his claim, and then, for unexplained reasons, did not serve the proceeding for more than a year. By the time the proceedings were served, more than two years had passed since the first White publication.
99Had Ms Dalas raised the limitation defence at that time, there would have been no basis upon which Mr White could have obtained an extension of time. Mr White would have been time-barred in relation to the first White publication.
100The fact that a limitation defence was available appears to have gone unrecognised by Ms Dalas’ lawyer until after the Further Amended Statement of Claim was filed. I do not accept Ms Dalas’ submission that Mr White’s incorrect identification of the operative legislation meant it was not possible for Ms Dalas to plead the limitation defence earlier. Her lawyer should have identified that the date the pleading was filed was more than a year from the date of publication, notwithstanding that the wrong legislation was pleaded. Neither party has been well served by their lawyers in their drafting of the pleadings. That is a matter between the parties and their lawyers.
101This oversight by Ms Dalas’ lawyer does not mean that leave should not now be granted. The late amendment has not caused delay, nor did it cause the trial to be adjourned. The prejudice to Ms Dalas in not being allowed an available and complete defence, exceeds any prejudice to Mr White in incurring costs of preparing for trial in relation to one of the publications upon which he sues. It is not apparent that, had the limitation defence been raised earlier, Mr White would have abandoned his claim in relation to that publication. Further, I note that he relies on the imputations conveyed by the first White publication in order to establish identification in the second White publication. It is not apparent in what way Mr White’s preparation for trial would have been significantly altered. In any event, any prejudice he can establish in this regard can be ameliorated by appropriate costs orders.
102Accordingly, I grant leave to Ms Dalas to amend her Defence to plead the expiration of the limitation period.
Can Mr White be granted an extension of time?
103The legislation in effect at the time of the first White publication required a court to extend the limitation period if, and only if, it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action in relation to the matter complained of, within one year from the date of the publication.
104Mr White must establish that it was not reasonable to bring an action before 9 November 2021, or as late as 22 November 2021.
105In Chen v Evans,[17] Dixon J accepted that a plaintiff who had not been aware of the impugned publication until nearly three years after its publication, satisfied the test. He said it was unreasonable to expect an individual to trawl the internet, looking for defamatory material, in order to vindicate his or her rights before the expiry of the limitation period.[18]
[17][2014] VSC 230
[18]Ibid at [7]
106Other cases have examined whether not knowing the identity of the publisher is a circumstance which would make it “not reasonable” to bring proceedings in time. (See for example McMahon v Watkinson.)[19]
[19][2014] VSC 123 at [52]
107Where a plaintiff has engaged in non-litigious processes to vindicate his or her rights, the statutory test of “not reasonable” may also be met. (See for example Ahmed v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd,[20] Noonan v MacLennan[21] and Han v Australian Kung Fu (Wu Shu) Federation Inc.[22]). However, in Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd,[23] the decision to grant an extension of time by the trial judge, on the basis that the parties were attempting to resolve the dispute without resort to litigation, was overturned on appeal. The appeal court held there was no prospect that the matter would settle within the limitation period, and no evidence that commencing proceedings would have impaired settlement negotiations.
[20][2010] NSWSC 676
[21][2010] 2 Qd R 537
[22][2011] VSC 498
[23][2010] QCA 175
108The Court does not have a discretion to extend time, simply because it seems fair or just. An extension can only be based on the statutory test being met.[24] The provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act differ when it comes to defamation from other general limitation extension rules. The test is an objective one.[25]
[24]Pingel (ibid) at [87]
[25]Noonan v MacLennan (supra) at [20]
109Mr White said he paid his solicitor a deposit to commence litigation against Ms Dalas on 17 August 2021. This was well within the limitation period. Mr White said his solicitor seemed to be taking a long time to get anything done and so he pestered him and received a confirmation email on 20 October 2021 that Ms Dalas had been served. In fact, on 19 October 2021, Mr White’s solicitor, Christopher Hannay, had sent Ms Dalas a letter of demand.

110On 19 October 2021, Ms Dalas responded to that letter by email. She wrote:
“I disagree and am offended with the statements and allegations made by your client, Mr Gary White in your attached letter and the statements he has made naming and defaming myself and AASGAA on many occasions on his Facebook Page ‘NSW trustee & Guardian Client Abuse’. I will vehemently respond accordingly to any legal action.”[26]
[26]Ms Dalas at CB 35
111There was no basis upon which Mr White could reasonably have considered that settlement discussions would resolve the dispute, or that commencing litigation would disrupt promising negotiations.
112Mr White knew about the first White publication within the limitation period, he knew who the publisher was within the limitation period, he was not engaging in negotiations with Ms Dalas that would mean it was not reasonable for him to issue proceedings in time, and he intended to issue those proceedings.
113Objectively, there was no basis upon which I could conclude that it was not reasonable for Mr White to have issued proceedings in time. I therefore cannot extend the limitation period.
114Accordingly, Mr White’s claim in relation to the first White publication is statute-barred.

Second White publication
Has Mr White established publication?
115On 23 May 2021, Ms Dalas published on the AASGAA Facebook page the following post:
“Cleaned up Trolls!
We pride ourselves on being a safe site. Ours is a NATIONWIDE support group and we on here are all family, witnesses to the horrors of guardianship.
We however will not engage with trolls and will block anyone who trolls the site, who stalks or abuses members ... , who target members for money, who ask for money from us or others (we have seen a bit of this, they were promptly removed and blocked), who solicit sexual favours from members or who have a history of fraud related charges or who clearly lie (making statements and allegations that are clearly false and defamatory), defame our group or the core members in the group.
Why we select & vet our associations? We have discovered and refuse to associate with groups or advocates that either have:
˃ A criminal history (excluding activists charged for exposing State abuses or those unfairly charged)
˃ Taking advantage of their own loved ones (playing the victim of course)
˃ Asking for [sic] us and others for money or want to use our group to defraud vulnerable people
˃ Associate with people of that calibre.

So our links are only with trusted groups/advocates with impeccable backgrounds. We will not associate nor have predators of this nature on our site.
Its actually quite frightening the lengths and bullying tactics these individuals will go to! They should just focus on their issues and the fight – exposing Guardianship abuses – and stop stalking members on here.
So if a person or group is blocked, you know that there is a damn good reason for it!

Our only links are NASGA Elaine Renoire & Marti Oakley Marney Polland- Morris who have supported many Australians over the years, even BEFORE our group was created.
PLEASE CONTACT US IF ANYONE TARGETS YOU. ANYONE ASKING FOR MONEY (OR OTHER FAVOURS) IN EXCHANGE FOR ADVOCACY WORK OR SEXUAL FAVOURS, PLEASE REPORT THEM TO THE POLICE.
It is not acceptable.”[27]
[27]CB 2610-2611

(emphasis in original.)
116Although, in her Defence, Ms Dalas formally denies all the allegations made in paragraph 10 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, which includes publication, I do not understand that Ms Dalas actually denies that she posted the second White publication, nor that it was read. In her Defence, she pleads that the post had 42 reactions, 27 comments and two shares. At the very least, this is a strong inference that the post was seen by at least 42 people.
117One of the people who had seen the post and commented on it, was Ms Zuanetti. Ms Zuanetti gave evidence that she was ordinarily resident in Queensland.
118I am satisfied that Mr White has established publication to at least one person in Queensland.
Was Mr White identified?
119The second White publication does not name Mr White. Where a plaintiff can only be identified by extrinsic facts, it is necessary to show that someone to whom the matter was published had that extrinsic knowledge.
120Mr White pleads, at paragraph 10A of his Amended Statement of Claim, that he was identified in the second publication in the following ways:
(i)    Ms Dalas published the second publication as a further response to the post by Therese Therese on 9 November 2020 and the first White publication;
(ii)   Ms Dalas published the second publication in the AASGAA Facebook group, being the same Facebook group in which Ms Dalas published the second publication. (This is non-sensical. I assume it is an error and take it to mean that it was published on the same AASGAA Facebook group as the first publication.)
(iii)   In around September 2020, Ms Dalas, in her capacity as administrator of the AASGAA Facebook page, blocked Mr White from the AASGAA Facebook page; and
(iv)     It can therefore be inferred that readers who read the Therese Therese Facebook post would have concluded that the subject of the second publication was (or alternatively included) Mr White.
121Ms Dalas pleads in her Defence that:
(a)   the second White publication was not a response to the Therese Therese post;
(b)   the publication of the second White publication on the same forum as the first White publication is irrelevant, does not identify Mr White and does not make the second White publication about Mr White;
(c)   removing Mr White from the forum is not relevant and was not known to other members of the group or to the public and does not make the second White publication about Mr White;
(d)   the second White publication was made on a Facebook page where daily discussion occurs concerning AASGAA and the group members. The Therese Therese post and the first White publication occurred more than seven months earlier;
(e)   this would mean that the reasonable reader would have had to scroll back and read over 1000 posts to get to the Therese Therese post in order to identify Mr White in that post and conclude that the second White publication was a response to that post.
The test for identification
122Ms Dalas’ intention, when she posted the second White publication, is irrelevant. Even if she was not referring to Mr White, she may be liable if the publication was reasonably capable of referring to him.[28]
[28]Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239 at 1242 per Lord Reid, at 1252 per Lord Morris
123The test is whether, in the circumstances, the words would reasonably lead persons to believe the second White publication was “of and concerning him”.[29]
[29]Kasic v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1964] VR 702 at 707; Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 570 at [126]
124In cases where identification is in issue, there is a distinction between cases where the ordinary reasonable reader would know to whom the article referred (for example where a company is identified and the plaintiff is the director of the company, or the publication refers to “the Prime Minister of Australia”) and where it would be apparent only to people who had knowledge of special circumstances.[30]
[30]Steel v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348 at 374
125If the plaintiff is not named in the publication, and would only be identifiable because of knowledge of special circumstances, it is necessary to show that the matter was published to a person who had knowledge of those circumstances.
126The plaintiff must provide particulars of the facts and matters which are relied on that would cause an ordinary reasonable reader, with knowledge of those facts and matters, to identify the plaintiff.[31]
[31]Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (supra) at [132]
127The burden rests on the plaintiff to prove that there were persons to whom the defamatory matter was published, who had knowledge of the extrinsic facts such that it could be inferred that they would have, or did, identify the plaintiff from the impugned publication. In some circumstances the extrinsic facts will be of sufficient notoriety that it can be fairly presumed that the impugned publication identified the plaintiff to a person with that knowledge. It might be sufficient for a plaintiff to give evidence that people contacted them, where such contact was obviously a response to the publication.[32]
[32]Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras & Ors [2002] NSWCA 202
128In Prouten v Buxton,[33] Gibson DCJ was satisfied that the plaintiff was identified where she had not been named, but where a photograph had been uploaded to a community Facebook group along with an article warning cyclists that the woman in the photograph was using a stick to interfere with and endanger cyclists. The plaintiff called evidence from her daughter and a police officer who said they recognised her from the photograph. There was also evidence that people continued to refer to the plaintiff as “the stick lady”. The Court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that people in the plaintiff’s very small country town had identified her as the person about whom the imputations were conveyed.
[33][2024] NSWDC 182
129In Andersen v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Andersen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd,[34] the plaintiff claimed she had been defamed by reports in which she was not named. The first defendant had published that Jesse Thompson had been executed three years ago and was in a criminal gang. The second defendant had published that Jesse Thompson was an ice dealer who had been shot dead. The plaintiff said, by reason of the extrinsic facts that she had been the intimate partner of Jesse Thompson and had two children with him, defamatory imputations were conveyed (amongst others) that:
(a)   she had knowingly maintained an intimate relationship with a member of a criminal gang;
(b)   she had started a family with a member of a criminal gang;
(c)   she had knowingly associated with a dealer of the illegal drug ice.
[34][2023] NSWDC 358 (“Andersen”)
130The plaintiff identified the class of persons who knew the extrinsic facts, both generally in terms of groups, and specifically, in terms of named individuals her pleading.
131The court was not satisfied there had been identification from the impugned publications. There had been publication of a wide range of material on numerous platforms about Jesse Thompson. The evidence the plaintiff relied on did not establish that any of her witnesses had identified her from the impugned publications. Some of the witnesses relied on were aware of the allegations but did not identify a source for those allegations. The fact that people had made derogatory statements to the plaintiff, such as calling her a “druggie”, was insufficient to establish that they had identified her from the impugned publications.
The extrinsic facts
132As the second White publication does not name Mr White, or make any reference to him which would enable an ordinary reasonably reader to identify him as the subject of the publication, for example by referring to him as the leader of the NSW Facebook page, Mr White must rely on extrinsic facts to establish identification.
133Mr White pleads the following particulars, which I understand to be the extrinsic facts he relies on, knowledge of which would have caused reasonable readers of the second White publication to have identified Mr White:
(a)   the first White publication;
(b)   the Therese Therese post;
(c)   the fact that he had been blocked by AASGAA; and
(d)   that the Australian community of activists seeking to protect people from elder abuse is a small and interwoven community, meaning members of the audience to whom the second White publication was published were likely to talk to each other.
Did the first White publication identify Mr White?
134Mr White said that persons reading the second White publication would infer that it referred to, or included, the same person referred to in the Therese Therese post in November 2020.
135The Therese Therese post in November 2020 identified Mr White by name. In her post Ms Zuanetti wrote that she had “blocked him weeks ago” after their meeting, but that she had nothing to do with AASGAA blocking him. Ms Zuanetti wrote that AASGAA “won’t tolerate trolls and anyone who is taking advantage of vulnerable people so maybe ask yourself why”. The inference from that comment is that Mr White was a person who was either a troll, or a person taking advantage of vulnerable people.
136Ms Dalas, in the first White publication, said that AASGAA only blocks trolls and those with a known history of taking advantage of vulnerable people or asking for money from vulnerable people. Because she posted this as a comment to Ms Zuanetti’s post, by implication, she was identifying that Mr White fell into one of the categories of persons who had been blocked.
137In other comments on the Therese Therese post, Ms Dalas said she had made formal complaints of stalking, received threatening private phone messages, that people she knows had been asked about her movements, and that she had been slandered. Ms Dalas said one of the people making allegations was someone she had not met. She referred to “him and his friends”.
138“CC” commented on the Therese Therese post, “I have had issues with him too I would stay well away”. The “him” she was referring to was, by implication, Mr White.
139Readers of the Therese Therese post, and the other comments on the Therese Therese post, would have understood that Mr White was included in the group of people identified as having been blocked in the first White publication.
140I am satisfied that readers of the first White publication would have identified that Mr White was one of the people it was about.
Did the second White publication identify Mr White?
141There are similarities in the descriptions of the persons blocked by AASGAA in the first White publication and the second White publication. The first White publication identified the group of people that AASGAA had blocked as trolls, people who took advantage of the vulnerable, and people who asked for money. The first White publication said AASGAA would not tolerate those who bully vulnerable people. The second White publication identified people that AASGAA would block as anyone who (amongst other things) trolls the site, stalks or abuses members, or targets members for money.
142Ms Benetos-Rogers gave evidence that she had never seen Ms Dalas’ posts about Mr White. She did see a post of Mr White’s on 6 July 2021 on his NSW Facebook page and posted a comment: “Very sad, as if you’re not going thru enough with TAG, how can we help you brother??”
143Ms Holland had not seen the second White publication or anything on the AASGAA Facebook page; however, she was aware of allegations against Mr White of sexual impropriety from his own posts.
144There was no evidence from any witness that they had seen the second White publication and identified Mr White.
145There was no evidence from comments or other posts, from which I could conclude that anyone had identified Mr White from the second White publication.
146“Curly Sue”, an AASGAA administrator on the AASGAA Facebook page, commented that there were three stalkers who had been “caught stalking us and Kris Ch Dalas”. She wrote:
“Background: Kris has met two of these stalkers briefly (10 minutes at most) about two years ago and one, she has NEVER EVEN MET! They have a history of stalking others as well and one was actually charged with stalking & other similar offences.”[35]
(emphasis in original.)
[35]CB 1223

147Ms Dalas commented:
“Yes I have been stalked. Two aggressive males obsessed with me and everything I do, one female stalking me as well.
Aggressive males who stalk and bully & intimidate women are disturbing and should be avoided. Very alpha male behaviour, abusive and threatening. A female one was asking money off me (kept emails) and I blocked her as well.
…

… Even one of our members saw one of the stalkers at the family protest (hiding behind a pole taking photos of me- who acts like this). I made IT QUITE CLEAR to this individual to keep away from me! Cease & desist!.
One whom I have never met tells people they formed AASGAA …
I kindly emailed another to cease and desist and another to remove lies and allegations which are just made up.
…
… some have either a criminal record or a history of fraud.
That was enough for me to run.
Fraud charges!
In and out of jail!
One charged for stalking!
Changing your parents will (whilst dying) & removing your siblings!
…
Stalking is unacceptable. Violence against women & our vulnerable is not acceptable, ever.”[36]
[36]CB 1223

148Curly Sue was aware of Mr White’s identity but was also in possession of information that was not obtained from the Therese Therese post, the first White publication or the second White publication. Although I can infer that she was aware that the second White publication was about Mr White, I cannot infer that she identified him from the second White publication and the extrinsic facts. She had information other than the extrinsic facts available to her.
149Other than Curly Sue and Ms Dalas, none of the comments on the second White publication assist Mr White in establishing actual identification. They do not show that the readers knew the identity of the persons described, and indeed one commenter, “VL”, asked whether AASGAA members ought to be informed of the identity of the people Ms Dalas was writing about, suggesting that this information was not known by all readers of the AASGAA Facebook page.
150Nor did Mr White put on any evidence about the cross-pollination between AASGAA and the NSW Facebook group at the time of these publications, aside from his own evidence that they had some members in common. Ms Dalas said that, as at November 2022, there were about 100 common members. There was no evidence about whether these 100 common members were active on the respective Facebook pages.
151Mr White pleaded that the trustee and guardianship community is small and members talk amongst themselves. Even accepting that assertion, it does not establish that those who were aware of allegations about him were so aware from the second White publication.
152Mr White’s evidence, as well as evidence from Ms Dalas and Ms Zuanetti, was that allegations about Mr White’s conduct were circulating within the community, prior to the second White publication. Mr White’s own publications on his Facebook page established that he had been accused of sexual impropriety, as well as spying and had been removed from the AASGAA Facebook page, well before the second White publication.
153On 29 May 2021, six days after the second White publication, Mr White posted on the NSW Facebook page:
“Some of you out there have contacted us concerning postings and comments made on AASGAA’s Facebook recently. These related to allegations made against advocates of another group … AASGAA did not name that group. … It is the NSW group against which AASGAA is making these allegations and I am the person AASGAA is specifically accusing of seeking sexual favours from vulnerable women who have already been traumatised as victims of the guardianship system … .”[37]
[37]CB 1231
154Mr White was aware of the existence of the second White publication by 29 May 2021 at the latest. He said he had had enquiries from people after the second White publication and that people sent him links to the post. He could not open the links but said he was told that the post accused him of “doing harm to women”. He said that the people who had made those enquiries of him did not believe the allegations and a number of them, who had been members of AASGAA, left AASGAA thereafter.

155As he was blocked from the AASGAA Facebook page, I accept that the 29 May 2021 post on the NSW Facebook page, is evidence that someone had brought the second White publication to his attention.
156What is not apparent, however, is that the people who brought the second White publication to Mr White’s attention, did so because they were reasonable readers in possession of the extrinsic facts, and who had identified Mr White from the second publication.
157As they were people known to him and, I infer, readers or followers of the NSW Facebook group, it is likely they had seen Mr White’s own prior publications.
158On his NSW Facebook page, prior to the second White publication, Mr White had informed his readers:
(a)   On 21 September 2020, that he and JS had been removed from the AASGAA Facebook group;
(b)   On 24 September 2020, that RP had been blocked from the AASGAA Facebook page;
(c)   On 25 September 2020, that one member of the NSW Facebook group had “made a very serious and false allegations against me personally because I could not support her application for guardianship of her daughter”;[38]
[38]CB 2581
(d)   On 12 May 2021, that he had been asked by AASGAA to remove all references to them from his website;
(e)   On 12 May 2021, that he was not welcome at AASGAA’s upcoming rally in Sydney;
(f)    On 15 May 2021, that:
(i)he had watched the 14 May 2021 AASGAA rally in Sydney “from the sidelines”;
(ii)he was subsequently contacted by unknown persons who said they had been told who he was and who said they had been given his contact details by AASGAA;
(iii)these unknown persons had made comments “designed to put me up for ridicule and contempt”;
(iv)one of these callers seemed to be propositioning him;
(v)this was “clearly in response to allegations those associated with AASGAA have been circulating, claiming that I proposition women”;
(vi)He had assisted a person who “then turned around and made a very serious and false allegation against me personally. … These allegations are untrue but is the reason behind why I will only meet up with members I don’t know if it is in busy public places. This is now a prerequisite when they want to go over their cases with me in person”.
(vii)someone “who identified herself as the key representative for AASGAA in NSW” had “made those same allegations directly herself to our administrators”.[39]
[39]CB 2601

159Prior to the second White publication, Mr White had also published on his NSW Facebook page a comment from JS[40] which said:
“I can confirm that a (now) former member of ours (not AASGAA but closely linked) claimed a couple of months ago to me on the phone that you were propositioning women. I sympathised and asked when was it that it happened to her, upon which she acknowledged that it didn’t happen to her but she had been told about it. I pointed out that she is therefore spreading rumours.
Then she said she blocked you anyhow because you kept sending ‘overwhelming’ direct messages to her and offered to show me screenshots but never followed through, opting to leave the group in a huff instead … .”
[40]CB 2603
160On 15 May 2021, Mr White also published a comment from TRJ on his post that read:
“I’m terribly sorry you’re going through this Gary. In my opinion some people are quick to use these kinds of allegations like rape it’s not something you can get over and it’s a devastating slur and makes it harder for real victims to be taken seriously.”[41]
[41]CB 978
161Mr White responded to that comment:
“… I have not been the only person targeted and false allegations made against them. … .”[42]
[42]CB 2603; CB 979
162On the basis of these prior publications, readers who followed the NSW Facebook page, would be aware that Mr White had been blocked by AASGAA, was not welcome to attend the AASGAA rally, had attended the AASGAA rally from the sidelines, that women had made allegations of a sexual nature about him and that AASGAA had allegedly been circulating claims that he “propositioned women”.
163Readers of the second White publication, who had also read the posts on the NSW Facebook page, were likely to be aware that some of the allegations in the second White publication, for example about soliciting sexual favours, were about Mr White. Those readers were likely to identify Mr White in the second White publication; however, those are special circumstances that Mr White has not pleaded as extrinsic facts.
164For Mr White to be identified in the second White publication, readers of the AASGAA Facebook page would have had to retain the information from the first White publication six months earlier, in which Mr White had been identified by reference to the Therese Therese post, and conclude that the second White publication was about the same person. I do not accept the submission that the second White publication was a “further response” to the Therese Therese post. If this were correct, I would expect that the “further response” would reference the Therese Therese post, or in some other way, draw readers’ attention to it. It is apparent that the second White publication is a discrete post.
165Nevertheless, about 451 people had read the Therese Therese post. As not all readers of a post can be assumed to also read the comments on a post, I infer that some smaller number would likely have read the first White publication.
166Between the first White publication and the second White publication, there was more than six months in which hundreds, if not thousands, of posts and comments had been published on the AASGAA Facebook page.
167There was considerable evidence that in the months between the first and second White publications the AASGAA Facebook page was having a difficult time with people posting about matters that were not directly relevant to guardianship issues. Ms Dalas gave evidence that AASGAA was having a particular problem with “trolls” from Russia and Nigeria infiltrating the Facebook page.
168Mr White himself published multiple posts on his NSW Facebook page, criticising AASGAA for allowing its Facebook page to be used as a platform advocating violence and killing of government officials. He gave evidence that the AASGAA Facebook page had published posts from notorious conspiracy theorist Karen Brewer and others.[43] I infer there were many inflammatory and controversial posts on AASGAA in the months between November 2020 and May 2021.
[43]Webster v Brewer (No 3) [2020] FCA 1343
169It is common for community websites and Facebook pages to make general and generic statements about the sorts of persons who will be blocked and the types of comments that will be removed. Many, if not most, Facebook pages that allow members of the public to view and comment on posts will, from time to time, remind readers of the rules of that community. Such warnings will often be along the lines of reminders that “bullies will not be tolerated” and people who engage in such behaviour will be removed.
170The passage of time, and the multitude of other posts put up in the six months between November 2020 and May 2021, and the generic nature of the first White publication, would mean that ordinary readers of the AASGAA Facebook page, not in possession of the extrinsic facts, would likely consider the second White publication to be the sort of public announcement that is common on such Facebook groups.
171Mr White says there was a “lot of chatter” in his circles and people were coming up to him asking if he had engaged in criminal activity. I accept that this evidence raises the inference that he had been identified by the second White publication. What is not apparent is the timing of this “chatter” and whether it occurred before or after he “outed” himself as the person the second White publication was about.
172Nevertheless, on balance, there likely were at least some number of people who, aware only of the extrinsic facts, identified Mr White from the second White publication.
173At least three people commented on both the Therese Therese post and the second White publication. Those people were likely to have recalled the first White publication and to have drawn the conclusion that Mr White was amongst those identified in the second White publication.
174Accordingly, I am satisfied that Mr White was identified by the second White publication by those in possession of the extrinsic facts.
Where the defamatory imputations conveyed about Mr White?
175Mr White pleads the second White publication conveys the following defamatory imputations about him:
(a)   Mr White stalks members of the AASGAA Facebook page;
(b)   Mr White abuses members of the AASGAA Facebook page;
(c)   Mr White has been criminally charged with fraud offences;
(d)   Mr White targets members of the AASGAA Facebook page and demands that they give him money;
(e)   Mr White targets members of the AASGAA Facebook Page and demands that they give him sexual favours;
(f)    Mr White takes advantage of his own elderly relatives;
(g)   Mr White defrauds vulnerable people who need help to stop or prevent elder abuse; and
(h)   Mr White bullies, harasses and intimidates vulnerable women who need help to stop or prevent elder abuse.
176Mr White pleads, further or alternatively, that the second White publication conveys the following imputations by way of true innuendo to all readers who had knowledge of the extrinsic fact that Mr White is an activist seeking to protect people from elder abuse:
(a)   Mr White dishonestly misuses his position as an activist seeking to protect people from elder abuse by using that position to target members of the AASGAA Facebook page and demand that they give him money;
(b)   Mr White dishonestly misuses his position as an activist seeking to protect people from elder abuse by using that position to target members of the AASGAA Facebook page and demand that they give him sexual favours;
(c)   Mr White dishonestly misuses his position as an activist seeking to protect people from elder abuse by using that position to take advantage of his own elderly relatives;
(d)   Mr White dishonestly misuses his position as an activist seeking to protect people from elder abuse by using that position to defraud vulnerable people who need help to stop or prevent elder abuse; and
(e)   Mr White dishonestly misuses his position as an activist seeking to protect people from elder abuse by bullying, harassing and intimidating vulnerable women who need help to stop or prevent elder abuse.
177If Mr White relies on identification as part of a class of persons, he must establish that an aspersion cast against a group or class identifies and attaches to him.[44]
[44]Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116 at 124 per Lord Porter
178Where allegations are made against an identifiable class of persons, general defamatory imputations may reflect adversely on individuals within the class. For example allegations of government corruption were found to be capable of reflecting adversely on all government ministers – Bjelke-Petersen v Warburton[45] – and allegations of match fixing against a cricket team were found to be sufficient to attach to the captain of the cricket team – David Syme & Co Ltd v Lloyd.[46] That is not the case in this publication. There was no evidence of a known class of trolls.
[45][1987] 2 Qd R 465 at [470] and [475]
[46][1984] 3 NSWLR 346 at [363]
179In the case of McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd,[47] an allegation about one of three partners in a firm of private investigators was found to be incapable of conveying the imputation that each of the three partners was guilty of alleged the conduct. Importantly in that case, the imputation said to be conveyed was one of guilt, not of suspicion of guilt, and the Court held that an allegation that only one of such a class was guilty was incapable of being reasonably understood as an assertion that all of the class was guilty. At most, the publication would convey a suspicion that each member of the class was guilty.
[47](1989) 16 NSWLR 485
180In Christiansen v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd & Ors,[48] allegations that three managers at a casino had been dismissed for different reasons, without linking a person to the grounds of dismissal, was capable of “casting a cloud of suspicion” over each of them.[49] Inclusion of the plaintiff in a group was capable of leaving the reasonable reader with the impression that there were grounds for suspecting the plaintiff was the culprit.[50]
[48][2012] NSWSC 1258
[49]Ibid at [32]
[50]Ibid at [32]
181In Kelly v Burston (No. 2),[51] the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had defamed him in an interview in which the defendant said he had terminated five people for breach of trust. The plaintiff had not been named and said he was identified by being included in a group of five. Gibson, DCJ struck out imputations which were pleaded for all members of the group, not the plaintiff, and imputations of guilt where he was one of a group where only some of those members of the group could be the subject of the imputations.
[51][2021] NSWDC 794
182Imputations are generally considered to be conveyed where an ordinary reasonable reader, having all the characteristics said to belong to such a person (see for example Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd),[52] would understand the words to have those meanings.
[52][1964] AC 234 at [258]-[260]
183The circumstances of the publication are also important. The medium of publication may be particularly influential. On social media, the reaction to defamatory matter may be impressionistic and fleeting.
184In Andersen, the Court was not satisfied that being in a de facto relationship and having children was sufficient to convey the imputations pleaded. The plaintiff was required to prove that there were people who, by reason of the extrinsic facts, had imputations of the kind pleaded conveyed to them. The factual evidence was missing to establish that those imputations were conveyed about Andersen.
185In Bazzi v Dutton,[53] the Full Court of the Federal Court found that external context cannot be referred to, to affect the meaning that a publication conveys to a reader. Where a reader has knowledge of an extrinsic fact that is not within the communities’ general knowledge, and is not stated in the matter complained of, the plaintiff must plead the fact to support an innuendo meaning.[54] The Court went on to say that it is the general impression created in the mind of the ordinary reasonable reader of a publication that determines whether it conveys one or more imputations about a claimant.[55] It is not sufficient that a publication is “offensive and derogatory”. The plaintiff has the onus to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the reader reasonably would have understood the publication to convey the imputation he or she asserted it conveyed.[56]
[53](2022) 289 FCR 1 (“Bazzi”)
[54]Bazzi [38]
[55]Bazzi at [47]
[56]Bazzi at [50]
Knowledge of extrinsic facts
186Mr White must establish that the imputations he alleges are conveyed by the second White publication, attach to him.
187Because he relies on extrinsic facts for identification, he must show that the ordinary reasonable reader, in possession of those extrinsic facts, would understand those imputations are conveyed about him.
188Mr White relies on extrinsic facts, being knowledge of the first White publication, the Therese Therese post, the fact that he had been blocked by AASGAA in September 2020 and the fact that people in the community were likely to talk to each other, to establish that he is identified in the second White publication.
189Mr White does not plead what facts he alleges readers would have obtained from the Therese Therese post and the first White publication. I have considered what facts the ordinary reasonable reader, aware of those publications, would be in possession of, when reading the second White publication.
190As well as identifying trolls and others, the first White publication goes on to say:
“We have also blocked people who used this site to bombard every minute of the day with their videos or use our site as a means to target vulnerable people. Hence why certain people are annoyed we have blocked them.”[57]
[57]CB 256
191This distinguishes the trolls and persons taking advantage of vulnerable people or asking for money, from those who, for example, bombard the site with videos. Mr White gave evidence that the person who bombarded the site with videos was well known within the movement, and was not him.
192There was no mention, in either the Therese Therese post, or the first White publication, or any of the other comments on the Therese Theres post, of sexual allegations. Therese Therese accused Mr White of being intimidating and making her feel uncomfortable. She called his behaviour unprofessional and asked him to stop harassing her and posting about her. CC commented that she had had “issues” with Mr White too. The nature of those issues was not disclosed, nor does Mr White plead that readers of the second White publication had knowledge of the comments on the Therese Therese post.
193The second White publication said AASGAA blocked people with a criminal history, those who take advantage of loved ones and those who ask for money or want to use AASGAA to defraud vulnerable people.
194Readers of the second White publication who had identified Mr White on the basis of the extrinsic facts, would be aware that:
(a)   Mr White was blocked by AASGAA from its Facebook page;
(b)   AASGAA blocks trolls and those with a known history of taking advantage of vulnerable people;
(c)   AASGAA will not tolerate trolls or bullies;
(d)   Ms Zuanetti had felt intimidated by him and he had made her feel uncomfortable.
195Mr White does not plead that the extrinsic knowledge included any of the information he had posted on his NSW Facebook page, other than that he was blocked by AASGAA.
What imputations are conveyed by the second White publication?
196The ordinary reasonable reader is a person who is of ordinary intelligence and education, who does not look at a publication like a lawyer but views it casually and is prone to a degree of loose thinking. The ordinary reasonable reader reads between the lines and draws inferences, implications and conclusions, particularly derogatory conclusions, more freely than a lawyer. (See Mond v The Age Company Pty Limited).[58]
[58][2025] FCA 422 at [73]-[74]
197The ordinary reasonable reader would understand, from the second White publication, that AASGAA would block people who engaged in certain types of behaviour.
198Mr White submits that, crucial to the “sting” of the imputation, is that it conveys a meaning that Mr White abuses members of the AASGAA Facebook page because they are members of AASGAA, or that he bullies them on the AASGAA Facebook page. It does not convey a meaning that he bullies people who happen to also be members of AASGAA. Mr White submits that Ms Dalas has put forward no evidence to support a finding that any conduct he has engaged in is either on the AASGAA Facebook page, or because the persons the subject of that conduct are members of AASGAA.
199I am not persuaded that the meaning conveyed by the imputation does impute that the conduct occurs on the AASGAA Facebook page, or as a result of the person being an AASGAA member.

473It was difficult for him to assess the exact details of bot traffic because the data he had access to only gave him the average visit duration. Visits to APTAGIE that came through Facebook, for example, in the period March 2022 to November 2024, totalled 431, and had an average duration of one minute and 20 seconds. This would be a long time for a bot, but a relatively short time for a human. The average duration on the site for people who were driven there through Twitter was 22 seconds. Mr Campey said Twitter visitors tend to click links and quickly move on if the subject matter does not interest them or is not relevant to them. Mr Amin said Twitter is not generally a driver of bot traffic. The average time for people directed to APTAGIE from Google was 6 minutes and 40 seconds.
474Mr Campey said there was an unusual amount of “direct” traffic to the website. Most people find a website by doing a search on a search platform such as Google. A high number of direct visits suggests a high number of bots visiting the website. However, it could also indicate a high number of people clicking links and being taken directly to the page or the website, instead of accessing the website through a search engine.
475The data he obtained disclosed 5025 site visits to the APTAGIE website, by 4310 unique visitors with an overall average duration on the site of 4 minutes and 1 second. Of those visits, about 25 per cent were from the US, with an average duration of 13 seconds. Mr Campey and Mr Admin both said this relatively short duration suggests either that most of the US traffic was bots, or was from human visitors clicking a link from another site and quickly discovering the content was not relevant and leaving the site.
476Mr Campey provided data for the second Dalas publication, which showed there had been 3731 unique page views with an average time on the page of 4 minutes and 22 seconds. Both experts agreed that this was too long for bots, and this indicated human traffic.
What was the extent of publication?
477I make the following findings:
(a)   There is no exact data about how many people saw or interacted with each of the Dalas publications;
(b)   It is likely that a significant number of bots visited the APTAGIE website and that, in particular, a large percentage of the US traffic was bots;
(c)   The unusual number of direct visits to the APTAGIE website suggests a high level of bot activity, but also represents visits from people who went directly to the website by clicking a link. Links to the APTAGIE website were published on Reddit, Twitter, the NSW Facebook page and the QLD Facebook page;
(d)   Between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of the traffic to the APTAGIE website was bots. Extrapolating that the same number of bots visited the second Dalas publication, this would mean that between 1493 and 1865 people visited that page. Mr White submits that 15 per cent of traffic was from administrators. Accepting that figure, and assuming that the administrators always visited the second Dalas publication, which seems unlikely, this would reduce the number of unique visitors to the second Dalas publication to between 1269 and 1580;
(e)   The “bounce rate” reflects the number of people who left the page almost immediately upon landing on it. The average bounce rate for the APTAGIE website was about 71 per cent. Given the evidence that bots spend only a second or two on a page, it is not clear whether the bounce rate also includes the visits by bots. The bounce rate for the second Dalas review was about 77 per cent. Taking all the figures provided by the data and interpreting them in the most favourable way for Mr White, this means that somewhere between 200 and 300 people visited the second Dalas publication, and spent enough time on it to mean that, after all the bots had visited, the average time spent on the page was more than 4 minutes;
(f)    If the bounce rate includes the bot visits, then the number of visitors to the second Dalas publication would be much higher, at around 2500 visits;
(g)   There was no data available for the fifth Dalas publication to establish the number of visitors likely to have read that article, other than inference from the number of people who generally interacted with the APTAGIE website. I could infer that some smaller subset of those who interacted with the APTAGIE website read the fifth Dalas publication, and that that number might be a similar number to those who read the second Dalas publication. However, given that links to the fifth Dalas publication were less widely distributed than links to the second Dalas publication, on the balance of probabilities, the number of people who read the fifth Dalas publication was likely to be somewhat lower than the number who read the second Dalas publication;
(h)   It is difficult to determine the number of readers of the first, third, fourth and sixth Dalas publications. These were published on the NSW Facebook page which had variable membership over time, ranging from 192 to 622l;
(i)    In line with my comments in relation to the White publications on the AASGAA Facebook page, not all members of a Facebook page are active, or would read every post. Not all members who read a post would respond to it. The likes, shares and comments can give an indication, but cannot disclose the actual number. Those who commented are likely to be the more actively engaged members; and
(j)    The NSW Facebook page posts would have been read by some number of members, likely in the tens to low hundreds of people, given the varying membership over time, and the likely level of engagement.
478The extent of publication is not such that I could be satisfied that, on its own, it was likely to, or did cause, serious harm to reputation. However, nor was it so trivial that I would be confident to say it was unlikely to cause serious harm.

Has Ms Dalas established serious harm to reputation?
479I have already found that the harm caused by multiple publications of the same, or substantially the same matter, can be aggregated.
480I do not accept that the quality of the publications was low, because the matter was published to people who already had a view about Ms Dalas that would have been unchanged by any or all of the publications. I accept that some of those members of the NSW Facebook page had negative views about Ms Dalas, such as JS and RP, but there was no evidence that this was the prevailing view. Ms Dalas’ evidence was that AASGAA and the NSW Facebook page had about 100 members in common. It is unlikely that members with a negative view about Ms Dalas and AASGAA would have remained members of her organisation.
481Nor was there any evidence that those who accessed or read the APTAGIE website were people who would generally have had a negative view about Ms Dalas or were primarily members of the NSW Facebook page. Links to the APTAGIE website were attached to Twitter posts, Reddit posts, other websites and the NSW Facebook page. There is no evidence that readers of the other websites, Twitter and Reddit threads had any negative view about Ms Dalas, or AASGAA.
482Mr White submitted that, to the extent that any harm was caused by imputations that Ms Dalas had been arrested, this was a rumour that had already been circulating in the guardianship community, prior to his publication. He had been instrumental in spreading this rumour, publishing posts, not sued upon, alleging this prior to the first Dalas publication.
483I am not satisfied that earlier “rumours” caused damage to Ms Dalas’ reputation. Ms Connolly had been provided with the video and podcast before interviewing Ms Dalas, but proceeded with the interview.
484Ms Siciliano gave evidence that she saw the second Dalas publication and thought it showed Ms Dalas. She had not previously been aware of those rumours.
485Ms Dalas’ evidence was that it was after the second Dalas publication that she noticed a significant decline in the number of calls and emails to AASGAA. The Four Corners program aired in March 2022, and for about a month, the enquiries increased in line with expectations. However, after that time, that is, after the time when the second Dalas publication was published, those enquiries declined.
486I infer that one of the reasons for the decline was likely because some number of people had read the second Dalas publication and decided against making enquiries of AASGAA.
487It is inherently likely that, after the Four Corners’ episode aired, members of the public would have had a heightened interest in AASGAA and Ms Dalas.
488I accept Ms Dalas’ evidence that for about six months after the publication of the second Dalas publication, she was asked whether it was her in the video. The video was embedded in that publication. It is inherently unlikely that individuals would have hunted down 7News footage from 31 August 2021 on their own, to compare and contrast with publicly available photographs of Ms Dalas and then contact her to ask whether it was her.
489It is far more likely that the second Dalas publication, which embedded the Four Corners and arrest videos, would have prompted those phone calls.
490The decline in enquiries following the fifth Dalas publication is also likely to be causally related. The fifth Dalas publication showed a screenshot of the woman arrested on 31 August 2021 side by side with two photographs of Ms Dalas dressed similarly from 14 May 2021, and then another photograph of Ms Dalas labelled “AASGAA’s leader” with an inset of the woman being arrested, both of them captured in similar poses with open mouths, looking slightly up.
491Understandably, Ms Dalas had witnesses who, despite initial reservations, ultimately did not believe the allegations made about her. However, I can infer that there are others who saw the publications, and in particular the second and fifth Dalas publications, and did believe the arrest imputations.
492On the basis of the inherent tendency of the words, the extent of publication and the evidence of witnesses in relation to the arrest imputations, I am satisfied that the arrest imputations, and in particular the second and fifth Dalas publications, caused Ms Dalas serious harm to her reputation.
493Accordingly, I find that Ms Dalas has established that she suffered serious harm to her reputation.
494If I am wrong that the harm caused by publication of the same, or substantially the same matter, can be aggregated, I am satisfied that the publication of each of the second Dalas publication, and separately the fifth Dalas publication, was sufficient to cause serious harm, having regard to the content of the publication, the extent of publication that I am satisfied has been established and the evidence of Ms Dalas and others about the harm done to Ms Dalas’ reputation.

Defences
495Until trial, Mr White relied on a defence of truth or justification to the arrest, lying and illegal rally imputations.
496Mr White maintained, despite Ms Dalas’ denials on oath that she was not the person arrested, that it was her. He maintained that her denials were lies. He obtained an expert opinion to try to support his assertion that the woman in the video and Ms Dalas were the same person. He relied on voice recordings of Ms Dalas and the voice heard on the video of the woman.
497He sought, pursuant to subpoena, all documents held by New South Wales Police in relation to Ms Dalas, including any criminal history, as well as the names and addresses of persons arrested or issued infringement notices by New South Wales Police in connection with a protest rally on 31 August 2021. On 15 December 2023, New South Wales Police produced documents relating to three women arrested at the protest rally. None of them were Ms Dalas. No documents were produced in relation to Ms Dalas.
498Despite obtaining those documents in late 2023, he maintained his truth defence until trial nearly a year later. At trial, he wisely did not press this defence.
499The photographs of the arrested woman and Ms Dalas do bear a resemblance at first glance. They show two women of similar age, with similar shades and styles of blonde hair, and similar body shapes and sizes. Both women wear glasses. Both are dressed entirely in black.
500However, on closer inspection, there are clear differences. The glasses are different: the arrested woman has thick dark frames on her glasses; Ms Dalas’ glasses have no, or very thin frames. The hairstyle is different: Ms Dalas has a fringe; the arrested woman does not. The arrested woman’s hair is longer. The facial features are not the same. The arrested woman’s face is wider, her mouth shape is different, her lips are thinner, and her nose shape is different.
501After hearing Ms Dalas give evidence in court and listening to the video of the woman arrested, I concluded that it would be difficult to mistake their voices as the same.
502The fact that, in the face of all these obvious differences, Ms Dalas’ denial in the Magistrates’ Court, and the police documents showing Ms Dalas had not been arrested, Mr White maintained until the very last moment that the arrested woman was Ms Dalas, says much about Mr White’s mindset and motivation in this litigation and confirms my earlier findings that Mr White forms conclusions based on his own opinions and not on the evidence.
Honest opinion
503Mr White relies on s31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) which provides that it is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if a defendant proves that:
(a)   the matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant rather than a statement of fact;
(b)   the opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
(c)   the opinion is based on proper material.
504If a defendant establishes a defence of honest opinion, that defence will be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the opinion was not honestly held at the time of publication.
505Proper material for the purposes of this defence is material, which is set out, in specific or general terms, in the published matter, and which is substantially true or was published on an occasion of privilege.
506Mr White says the pleaded imputations were expressions of honest opinion on proper material. To succeed, Mr White must establish that the recipient of the publications would understand that an opinion was being offered, rather than a statement of fact.
507Mr White relies on the following to establish that the imputations would be understood to be an expression of his honest opinion rather than a statement of opinion:
(a)   In the first Dalas publication, the statement “anyone watching the Four Corners Video and the video of the rally will see they are one and the same person”;
(b)   In the second Dalas publication, the fact that the post was headed “Review”;
(c)   In the fourth Dalas publication, “I stand by the veracity of my statement that it is AASGAA’s leader in the video footage …. She has publicly denied this”; and
(d)   In the fifth Dalas publication, the fact that Mr White draws a comparison between Ms Dalas and the woman arrested.
508Mr White submits that the first to fifth Dalas publications were all based on proper material because the footage of the video of the arrest and the footage from the Four Corners interview were included in the publications.
509I do not accept those submissions. The fourth Dalas publication might cause a recipient to understand that Mr White had a view about the “veracity” of his statement, which was contradicted by Ms Dalas’ public statements. I am not persuaded that the reasonable recipient would have understood Mr White was expressing an opinion. Rather, he was asserting a fact and stating that Ms Dalas had lied.
510The other publications all positively asserted that the person in the arrest video was Ms Dalas. He did not embed the video footage in order to enable readers to compare and contrast, but rather to confirm his statement of fact that the women depicted were one and the same. The ordinary reasonable reader of the publications would understand from the publication that Ms Dalas was the person being arrested and that she had lied about it publicly and in court.
511Mr White also positively asserted that Ms Dalas was one of the organisers of the rally at which she had been arrested. There was no proper material to support the allegation, nor to enable readers to understand that this was an expression of opinion. It is difficult to understand what “opinion” Mr White is supposed to be expressing in relation to this imputation.
512The honest opinion defence fails.
Qualified privilege – reply to attack
513Mr White says the publications were published on an occasion of privilege at common law. The purpose of the NSW Facebook page and the APTAGIE website was to provide information about matters relating to Public Trustees. Individuals who accessed those sites had an interest in obtaining information about Public Trustees. Ms Dalas was a public figure in the guardianship and trustee space. Recipients of the publications had an interest in receiving information about her.
514Further, Mr White said he was responding to attacks made by Ms Dalas against him, calling him a predator and a troll. His response was germane to the occasion as it set out his concerns about her conduct as a representative of the guardianship movement, in response to those attacks. There was no evidence that Mr White was motivated by malice.
515I do not accept those submissions. Recipients of the publications had an interest in guardianship and trustee matters and an interest in receiving information about a representative of the movement.
516However, there was no duty or obligation on Mr White to publish false allegations that Ms Dalas had been arrested, had organised the rally at which she had been arrested or had lied about it. Nor could there be any corresponding interest in recipients receiving a false statement of fact that a representative, Ms Dalas, had been arrested.
517The publications were not a reply to attack. The Dalas publications were published between March 2022 and November 2022. The “attack” to which Mr White claims to be responding occurred in November 2020 and May 2021. Mr White had repeatedly responded to the perceived attack by Ms Dalas in numerous publications over the years. The privileged occasion, if it existed, does not continue indefinitely. In any event, I am satisfied that Mr White attacked Ms Dalas and that her publications were a reply to this attack. This would render any publication of Mr White’s a riposte that does not attract the privilege.
518Finally, even if I were satisfied that there was an occasion of privilege that warranted the publication by Mr White, and that his publication was germane to the occasion, the defence would be defeated because I am satisfied that Mr White was motivated by malice.
519I make this finding for the following reasons:
(a)   Mr White devoted an enormous number of posts over years, in addition to those sued on in this publication, to attacking AASGAA and Ms Dalas;
(b)   The sued-on posts were published after Ms Dalas had obtained an interim Personal Safety Intervention Order and they were in breach of that order;
(c)   Mr White’s disregard for the terms of that order, which prevented him publishing matters about Ms Dalas on the internet, is sufficient in and of itself to persuade me he was motivated by malice;
(d)   The content of Mr White’s publications make it plain that he was resentful of AASGAA’s high profile, jealous that Ms Dalas had been featured in the Four Corners program, bitter that he had been blocked from AASGAA’s Facebook page, and fixated on blaming Ms Dalas;

(e) Mr White engaged a private investigator to investigate both Ms Dalas and her husband, to find out “who she really was”. This suggests a level of entirely unwarranted suspicion about Ms Dalas and her motives; and
(f) Mr White entertained and spread allegations about Ms Dalas’ conduct and motivations as set out in relation to my findings about abuse.
520Accordingly, the defence of qualified privilege failed.

Damages
521The purposes of an award of damages are to provide consolation for hurt to feelings, compensation for damage to reputation, and vindication of the plaintiff’s reputation.
522The damages ought to reflect the high value which the law places upon reputation.
523The extent of publication, including the likely grapevine effect, and the seriousness of the defamatory sting, are pertinent considerations.
524Injury to feelings may constitute a significant part of the harm sustained by a plaintiff, and for which a plaintiff is to be compensated by damages. Injured feelings include the hurt, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, sense of indignity and the sense of outrage felt by the plaintiff.
525Aggravated damages are a form of compensatory damages and, where appropriate, form part of the general damages awarded to a successful plaintiff for non-economic loss, designed to reflect aggravation caused to a plaintiff’s hurt or injury by reason of some conduct of the defendant.
526I have found that the publications did cause serious harm to Ms Dalas’ reputation within the trustee and guardianship community. This is the community in which she has built a reputation for advocacy and for assisting the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable.
527I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, within the community continue to hold a positive view about Ms Dalas. The fact that she has been able to continue her advocacy work is a testament to that.
528However, the exact impact of the publications on her reputation is unknown and unknowable. There are those who, despite this decision, will continue to believe the defamatory imputations spread by Mr White, because they are imputations that play into the polarisation and divisions that developed during the COVID pandemic.
529Ms Dalas impressed as a straightforward witness who gave truthful evidence and did her best to assist the Court. She did not exaggerate her evidence and did not try to bolster her claim. She made admissions against interest. I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence as reliable.
530I accept Ms Dalas’ evidence about the impact of these publications on her. She sued only on a selection of publications Mr White published about her. As far back as 2020, he had made allegations about her. She said she turned the other cheek at that time.
531However, the posts did not abate and she eventually took out an intervention order because she felt so harried and harassed. She felt that his posts were causing others to make increasingly aggressive comments about her. One commenter, ME, suggested he would “do my thing ripping into these AASGAAHOlics or whatever these fools call themselves”, to which JS responded, “a delicate approach is needed, as much as a blunt one is desired”.[101] Ms Dalas said she felt threatened by three men, Mr White, JS and ME, talking about her, discussing criminal organisations and a “blunt” approach, which she took to mean blunt force.
[101]CB 3626
532I accept her evidence that the harm the publications caused her was aggravated by the fact that the publications were in breach of the intervention order. Every time she was informed that Mr White had published something about her, she reported the breach, but nothing seemed to stop Mr White from continuing to post. Indeed, he made references in his posts to the fact of the intervention order. He scoffed at the idea that she could possibly feel threatened by him and persistently denied engaging in stalking or harassment, despite the fact that he was in breach of an order by posting.
533Ms Dalas said she felt that the intervention order was not working to stop the ongoing harassment. She said she had done everything she could to try to remove the publications. She contacted Google and Facebook, she tried the eSafety Commissioner, she contacted police, and she had been “in and out” of the Magistrates’ Court seeking removal orders. She has had more than 28 court appearances..
534She obtained an order that Mr White had to remove the publications, but he did not comply and did not stop posting.
535In the end, she felt that issuing defamation proceedings might be the only way to stop him. She issued her proceedings after he had already issued his proceedings against her. He continued to publish posts about both the intervention order and the defamation proceedings.
536I can well appreciate that, in light of Mr White’s blatant disregard for the terms of the intervention order, she would have felt she had few options available. Even criminal charges in relation to the breach of the intervention order did not convince Mr White to comply with the orders. It was not until after his conviction on a charge of using a carriage service to menace and harass, to which he pleaded guilty, that he removed the fifth Dalas publication. That occurred only the day before this trial commenced.
537In all, Mr White published more than seventy publications about Ms Dalas and AASGAA. He removed her name but seems unable or unwilling to accept that referring to her as “AASGAA’s leader” and posting her photograph still identifies her and breaches the terms of the intervention order. Mr White is an intelligent man. He well understood the terms of the order and the repercussions of his actions. He said he was a champion of the women’s movement. If that is correct, he should understand the impact of his conduct on Ms Dalas. He was motivated by his extreme resentment and dislike of Ms Dalas, and giving vent to that dislike and resentment was more important than complying with the law.
538Ms Dalas said that staying silent and turning the other cheek was causing her more damage, and that she needed to restore her credibility within the guardianship community. She said the seriousness of the allegations made about her has made it difficult when dealing with other advocates and the media, as well as victims.
539She said she had tried to minimise the damage done by Mr White, but she is “damned if I do and damned if I don’t”. If she stays silent, she allows his allegations to go unanswered. If she speaks out, she risks amplifying those allegations herself.
540This is a case where it is particularly important to “nail the lie”. Ms Dalas is a person who has worked to build a community devoted to helping people navigate difficult situations. To be associated with a serious imputation that she was arrested for criminal offences, in circumstances where many within her community would consider she was exposing the most vulnerable to risk, is damaging. There is absolutely no truth to it.
541Mr White has also built a community to help the vulnerable. It is deeply regrettable that so much of his energy and time has been spent writing lengthy posts excoriating AASGAA and Ms Dalas, initiating legal proceedings against Ms Dalas, and engaging private investigators to investigate Ms Dalas and others. His energies would be much better directed towards the issues his advocacy group was set up to deal with in New South Wales.
542Each case turns on its own facts and circumstances, and awards of damages in one case are not readily comparable in another.
543I am satisfied that Ms Dalas has suffered serious harm to her reputation, which must be recognised by an appropriate award of damages. I accept that the harm caused by the publications has taken a significant personal toll on her for which she is entitled to compensatory damages. The publications upon which she has succeeded have caused her stress, anxiety and embarrassment. Attempts to protect her reputation without litigation, by seeking the removal of the posts and restraining Mr White from further publication, have been unsuccessful.
544I consider the appropriate award of damages in this case to be $90,000.
Aggravated damages
545I am satisfied that Mr White has aggravated the damage caused by his publications in the following way:
(a)   Maintaining a defence of truth in relation to the arrest imputations until the trial, despite finding out the identity of the arrested woman in December 2023;
(b)   Maintaining the publications, and making further publications ventilating the same allegations, in breach of orders of the Magistrates’ Court; and
(c)   Making allegations in court about Ms Dalas, including that she was somehow responsible for MW publishing the name of the social worker, which led to MW’s criminal conviction, that Ms Dalas “represents the radical section of the movement”, and that Ms Dalas “abused the hell” out of a person, an allegation that was not put to Ms Dalas.
546An award of $10,000 for aggravated damages is appropriate.

Injunction
547Ms Dalas also seeks a permanent injunction restraining Mr White from further publication of the defamatory imputations.
548A permanent injunction should only be granted where the Court has assessed the threat or risk of a repeat of the publication of the defamatory matter, and is satisfied that such an order is reasonably necessary to address that threat or risk.[102]

[102]Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 351 at [15]; Massoud v Radio 2GB Sydney Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Ltd; Massoud v Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nine Digital Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 336, (29 July 2021) (per Gibson DCJ)

549In this case, I am satisfied that there is a real prospect that Mr White will continue to publish defamatory imputations about Ms Dalas. A permanent injunction is warranted to address that risk.
550Given Mr White’s failure to adhere to previous court orders not to publish matters about Ms Dalas, it is appropriate to extend the permanent injunction to all the defamatory imputations pleaded.
551Although I have not found all the alleged imputations were conveyed, and therefore have not addressed any of the defences available for the other imputations, I am comfortably satisfied that, if the other imputations had been conveyed, Mr White has not established that any of those imputations were true. Mr White is permanently restrained from publishing allegations that would have any of the defamatory meanings pleaded.
552For the avoidance of doubt, a breach of this restraint would constitute a contempt of court.
553Those are my reasons. I will make orders reflecting these reasons. I reserve leave to the parties to be heard on the question of interest and costs.

- - -

[2025] VCC 1410

7 October 2025