Comment at Your Own Risk!!!

Brose v Baluskas & Ors [2020] QDC 15 (28 February 2020)

A couple of months ago I was excited (sad- I know) to happen upon a 60 Minutes story relating to defamation and social media. I’d best be honest- I don’t often watch 60 Minutes. I would like to say this is because I am usually involved in highly intellectual pursuits such as reading the latest High Court cases on a Sunday night. But the reality is-shush- I am probably more likely to be binge watching the latest Netflix drama or reading a mindless book- or perhaps even scrolling facebook to jealously find out what my network of friends did over the weekend…

This story had me intrigued though. It related to a school principal bringing an action against a variety of defendants (mainly parents at the school she was employed at) for defamation. It arose out of the P & C President at Tambourine Mountain State High School setting up a facebook page and a website. These sites were actually originally set up to support the school’s Principal Ms Tracey Brose after her suspension in 2016.

People started to comment on the social media pages. Importantly to the result of the case, the vast majority of the comments were complimentary to and supportive of the school principal. There were a selection of comments which were critical, and arguably defamatory of the plaintiff.

The test for defamation relates to whether or not the publication conveys a defamatory meaning. In other words would an ordinary reasonable person think less of or shun or avoid the plaintiff. Muir noted in the case, it is ‘common knowledge that social media sites have become notorious breeding grounds for false or exaggerated claims, statements made with little or no explanatory context.’

Interestingly when I read Brose v Baluskas & Ors my impression of the case was very different to how I had interpreted the result from the Channel 9 story. In the end two of the defendants were ordered to pay $3,000 in damages each. Two of the defendants were also restrained from making further defamatory comments against the plaintiff. This result was significantly
lower compared to what the plaintiff was seeking. To put this result into context the case indicated the plaintiff had spent more than $600,000 on legal fees.

Muir DCJ found that many fewer people than was alleged by the plaintiff actually saw the comments. Her honour also questioned the credibility of some of the plaintiff’s imputations. Ms Brose had always argued that her reasons for bringing the
case had nothing to do with money. Muir DCJ pointed out the plaintiff had made strategic decisions about which defendants to pursue based on their ownership of property and those with the best prospects of success. Frankly as a torts lecturer- that strategic approach is highly unsurprising!

Within my tort law classes I often talk to my students about the importance of thinking about what they post on social media. I often note only put content on social media which you are happy for everyone in the world to know. Obviously people don’t always adhere to this advice- otherwise social media would be as boring as my torts lectures are??

Never in my life has there been a time when it is more important to exercise kindness to each other. It is best to avoid putting critical or nasty comments on social media- at the very least, by maintaining this approach, you will avoid ‘the fiscal and emotional toll’ of being a defendant in a defamation case!

[2020] QDC 15 (28 February 2020)