Animal rights activist Tash Peterson and her partner will be forced to pay $280,000 in damages after defaming the owners of a Perth veterinary clinic during a combative dispute in 2021 which was later circulated on social media.
In a judgment handed down on Monday, Supreme Court Chief Justice Peter Quinlan ruled Peterson and her partner Jack Higgs had used “provocative language” that carried defamatory imputations during a heated confrontation with Dr Kay McIntosh and Andrew McIntosh at their Bicton Veterinary Clinic that was shared to the prominent vegan’s 84,000 Facebook followers.
Vegan activist Tash Peterson is being sued.Credit: Tash Peterson
The court was told Peterson and Higgs had attended a nearby café on September 23, 2021 when Peterson spotted two cockatiels in a large cage at the front of the clinic.
Twenty-four hours after first noticing the birds, Peterson and Higgs entered the clinic and filmed interactions with the McIntoshes while making a raft of claims about the mistreatment of animals.
The six-minute interaction — which was captured on camera — featured a small introduction before Peterson and Higgs entered the premises and began grilling the McIntoshes about the two birds in the window.
A transcript of the interaction tendered as evidence in the trial showed Peterson accusing Kay McIntosh of “eating her own patients”.
More than two minutes in, Dr McIntosh can be heard asking the pair to leave, something that was repeated more half a dozen times before they left — and were followed outside by Mr McIntosh.
“Blatant animal abusers. Disgusting. Give me the phone I’m filming this slavery,” Peterson can be heard saying in the video, as police were called to the premises and Peterson was slapped with a ban.
The video, entitled “Exposing Vets for Being Hypocrites”, was then shared with her public Facebook page and viewed more than 78,000 times.
Peterson accused the clinic of “advertising animal slavery” and criticised its decision to hold them “enslaved” in a cage, despite the court being told the two birds would not have survived in the wild.
“I was shocked when I noticed this clinic, who are supposed to care about animals, displaying animal slavery out the front of their premises where two birds were locked in a small cage with no shade whatsoever,” Peterson wrote.
“Animals should not be forcibly bred into existence and used for human pleasure.”
During the pair’s trial in June, Peterson and Higgs had claimed the post was protected by qualified privilege and were justified as honest opinion, defending the content on the basis it was substantially true and a matter of public interest.
But Quinlan rejected those defences, ruling the conduct unreasonable in the circumstances.
The court was also told the saga had placed strain on the McIntoshes marriage, with Dr McIntosh claiming her husband had become consumed by the post and its traction on social media.
Despite the judge forming an unfavourable impression of Mr McIntosh as a witness, including when he was grilled about a GoFundMe page he created to bankroll the lawsuit, Peterson and Higgs were ordered to pay $260,000 to Dr McIntosh and Mr McIntosh in respect of their defamation claims.
The clinic was handed a further $20,000 in damages, with Peterson and Higgs found to have defamed the business and trespassed on the property.
But the McIntoshes’ claims for injurious falsehood and civil conspiracy were dismissed, as was the action against Peterson’s company V-Gan Booty Pty Ltd, the entity which owns her burgeoning OnlyFans account — which generated more than $380,000 in earnings in 2022.
A subsequent ruling concluded Peterson and Higgs should cover two-thirds of the McIntoshes’ legal bill.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.