The Courier-Mail

Court up­holds judge’s rul­ing on par­ent’s com­ments School head de­nied ap­peal

- Crime · White-collar Crime · Discrimination · Justice · Human Rights · Society · Law

“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.

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 judge’s con­clu­sion they were not defam­a­tory in that they were un­likely to make any rea­son­able reader think less of the ap­pli­cant,” he said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia