PRINCIPAL IN BITTER SWEET WIN

JUDGE AWARDS PALTRY COMPO

A GOLD Coast high school principal who sued parents for libelling her on Facebook has won a landmark defamation case – but she’s been slapped down by a judge who awarded a paltry $6000 compensation.

Emotional scenes erupted at Southport District Court yesterday as a judge found Tamborine Mountain State High principal Tracey Brose had been defamed by two parents who launched online attacks on her.

A GOLD Coast high school principal who sued parents for libelling her on Facebook has won a landmark defamation case – but she’s been slapped down by a judge who awarded a paltry $6000 compensation.

Emotional scenes erupted at Southport District Court yesterday as Judge Catherine Muir found Tamborine Mountain State High principal Tracey Brose had been defamed by two parents who launched savage online attacks on the veteran educator.

But it was a bittersweet victory for Mrs Brose, with the judge criticising her credibility as a witness and awarding her a fraction of the $1.5 million-plus in damages she had sought from the eight parents she originally sued in a bitter 3½-year legal battle.

The now-bankrupt parents she successfully sued, Donna and Miguel Baluskas, immediately flagged an appeal, telling Mrs Brose she could “stick her bill up her arse”.

“All we did was stick up for our children,” an emotional Mrs Baluskas said. “We’ve lost our house, we’ve lost our car, we’ve lost our caravan. She’s sent us bankrupt. I’m sorry, she can send her bill, she can stick it up her arse and it send it to our (bankruptcy) trustees.”

Mrs Brose, who said she had spent more than $600,000 on the case, said it was never about the money but about restoring her reputation and protecting her family after incidents including a home invasion of which Mr Baluskas was convicted.

The ruling ended a saga which began in February 2016, when Mrs Brose was mysteriously suspended over serious allegations against her.

The reasons for her suspension have never been made public despite the parents’ attempts to expose them during the court case.

Mrs Brose alleged she was defamed in social media comments on an online petition launched to have her reinstated.

The comments by Mr and Mrs Baluskas included that Mrs Brose was an “evil, nasty, horrible” woman and that “she thinks she is a investigator, judge, jury and executioner … and not a good one at that”.

Describing it as a sad case, Judge Muir found the Baluskases had defamed Mrs Brose, but not to the extent claimed.

“The damages I have awarded are modest and well

below what the plaintiff has sought … but I consider them sufficient to vindicate (Mrs Brose),” she said.

“The fiscal and emotional toll on all those involved has been high.

“It has involved many hours, many witnesses and caused much antagonism and distress for all parties.”

Judge Muir was unimpressed with the credibility of all parties, and especially critical of Mrs Brose, whom she said had contrived evidence.

“All of the parties who gave evidence before me failed to impress me as credible and reliable witnesses,” she said in her 140-page judgment.

“There were many aspects of the plaintiff’s evidence that I found troubling. At times her responses were less than transparent and beggared belief.

“Her memory was selective, her evidence often contrived, and she deflected questions when her answers appeared not to suit her case.

“Overall, I did not form the opinion that the plaintiff was deliberately dishonest. She was telling the truth as she saw it. But her recollection was often distorted and selective, and on occasion revealed a complete lack of insight, perspective and measure.”

Mrs Brose’s insistence that all she wanted was an apology was not borne out in the evidence, Judge Muir found.

She ordered Mr and Mrs Baluskas each to pay $3000 in damages for Mrs Brose’s hurt and distress and gagged them from repeating the defamatory comments.

Judge Muir threw out the cases brought against Laura Lawson and Trudie Arnold, finding their comments were not defamatory.

The judge said the case highlighted the dangers of making personal and abusive attacks on social media, but also the need for defamation law reform in the digital age.

“The ubiquitous nature of online discussion forums raise a myriad of complex legal issues in the context of the law of defamation … which warrant considerable legislative focus and solution,” she said.