Mt Tamborine High School principal Tracey Brose loses bid for ‘vindication’ in defamation dispute
The Mt Tamborine High School principal embroiled in a long-running defamation dispute with parents who criticised her online has been refused leave to appeal the case in the state’s highest court.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A Gold Coast Hinterland principal embroiled in a long-running defamation dispute with parents who criticised her online has been refused leave to appeal the case in the state’s highest court.
Mt Tamborine High School principal Tracey Brose was awarded $6000 in damages after a landmark defamation case in February in which a judge upheld her complaint against two parents but dismissed her claim against two others.
Mt Tamborine High School: Principal Tracey Brose continues legal fight
What they said, and what it cost them
Ms Brose lodged an appeal against a decision that she pay costs to parent Trudie Arnold who Judge Catherine Muir found had not defamed Ms Brose in comments made on Facebook.
Barrister Rob Anderson appeared for Ms Brose in the Court of Appeal Monday morning where he submitted the appeal was a “case with very good merits” and was not “all about costs” as had been argued by the respondent.
“That might be true in circumstances where the appeal would serve no purpose other than to vary the cost position,” Mr Anderson said.
“But that’s not the case here, we say there is a substantial injustice that requires address.
“At present on the face of judgment there has been no vindication with respect of meanings that she was a liar or a bully.”
He said the appeal held an “element of vindication” for Ms Brose.
“Here there is the correction of the record insofar as the allegations of bullying and lying which are serious allegations in themselves particularly against the plaintiff who is a high school principal,” Mr Anderson said.
“Those are serious in the context of her overall reputation so she would be entitled to vindication with respect of that.”
The Court of Appeal, comprised of Justice Philip McMurdo, Justice Debra Mullins, and Justice David North, found Ms Brose had “only became minded to (appeal) only when ordered to pay the respondent’s costs”.
“This is not a case where it can be said the applicant has been denied the opportunity through a judgment...of her having her reputation vindicated,” Justice McMurdo said.
“As I’ve said there has also been an apology by the respondent.
“Ultimately the proposed appeal is apparently intended to serve only the purpose of awarding the order for costs the amount of which is unquantified but ought not to be substantial.”
Justice McMurdo said the trial judge had concluded that Ms Arnold’s comments were not defamatory after hearing “considerable evidence”.
“The trial judge found the publication carried the imputation which were pleaded but the application failed because in the judges conclusion they were not defamatory in that they were unlikely to make any reasonable reader think less of the applicant,” he said.
Justice McMurdo highlighted the comment made by Judge Muir in her decision where she wrote: “Thirdly, the ordinary reasonable reader would take an impressionistic approach to their reading of this post and in doing so would form the immediate view that it should be ignored and disregarded as a baseless, exaggerated, meaningless, emotive rant with no explanatory context, by an ill measured, angry and irrational person with no regard for common decency. The ordinary reasonable reader would not be swayed by such a rant particular given the overwhelming level of support for the plaintiff on both websites.”
Ms Brose’s application for leave to appeal was refused.