Collier v Country Women's Association of NSW

Facts

1. The CWA is a not-for-profit organisation, which was incorporated pursuant to the Country Women's Association of New South Wales Incorporation Act 1931 (Private Act) (NSW) (the CWA Act). The CWA is regulated by the Constitution of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales Regulation and Rules (the CWA Constitution). The CWA in New South Wales is comprised of 30 regional groups which are divided into 400 local branches. The Wellington branch, of which the plaintiff was a member at relevant times, was within the Macquarie Group.
2. The CWA's aims include bringing all women and families together and forming a network of support; providing a forum for the voice of all women in New South Wales; and the improvement of conditions for all women and families, especially in country areas, including by lobbying for legislative changes, helping the local community and creating a network of support for members (CWA Constitution, reg 5).

The CWA Constitution

1. The CWA Constitution relevantly provides: "15. DISCIPLINING OF MEMBERS (1) A complaint may be made to the Executive Committee by any person that a member of the Association: (a) has persistently refused or neglected to comply with a provision or provisions of the rules and regulations, or (b) has persistently and wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Association. (2) On receiving such a complaint, the Executive Committee: (a) must cause notice of the complaint to be served on the member concerned, and (b) must give the member at least 14 days from the time the notice is served within which to make submissions to the Executive Committee in connection with the complaint, and (c) must take into consideration any submissions made by the member in connection with the complaint. (3) The Executive Committee may, by resolution, expel the member from the Association or suspend the member from membership of the Association if, after considering the complaint and any submissions made in connection with the complaint, it is satisfied that the facts alleged m the complaint have been proved. (4) If the Executive Committee expels or suspends a member, the secretary must, within 7 days after the action is taken, cause written notice to be given to the member of the action taken, of the reasons given by the Executive Committee for having taken that action and of the member's right of appeal under sub-regulation (6). (5) The expulsion or suspension does not take effect (a) until the expiration of the period within which the member is entitled to appeal against the resolution concerned, or (b) if within that period the member exercises the right of appeal, unless and until the Association confirms the resolution under sub-regulation (6)(v), whichever is the later. (6) (i) A member may appeal to the Association in general meeting against a resolution of the Executive Committee made under this regulation within 7 days after notice of the resolution is served on the member, by lodging with the Secretary a notice to that effect. (ii) The notice may, but need not, be accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which the member intends to rely for the purposes of the appeal. (iii) On receipt of a notice from a member under paragraph (l), the secretary must notify the Executive Committee which is to convene a general meeting of the Association to be held within 28 days after the date on which the Secretary received the notice. (iv) At a general meeting of the Association convened under paragraph (iii) (a) no business other than the question of the appeal is to be transacted, and (b) the Executive Committee and the member must be given the opportunity to state their respective cases orally or in writing, or both, and (c) the members present are to vote by secret ballot on the question of whether the resolution should be confirmed or revoked (v) If at the general meeting the Association passes a special resolution in favour of the confirmation of the resolution, the resolution is confirmed. . . . 80. All Branches shall manage their own affairs within the aims and subject to the Constitution of the Association. 81. Any member of a Branch having a grievance or who desires to settle a difficulty after having stated same at a Branch meeting may put the matter before the Council of her group. Should the Group Council fail to arrive at a decision the member may ask the Group Council to bring the matter before the Executive Committee, whose decision shall be final. . . . 86. No Branch shall approach a Government Department excepting with the consent and approval of the Executive Committee. A personal approach to a Government Department when approved by the Executive Committee, shall be made only by the President of the Association or her deputy or such other person as is authorised by the Executive Committee, all of whom shall be accompanied by another member of the Executive Committee or other person approved by it. . ." . . . BRANCH SECRETARY 107. The Secretary shall - (a) Enter all Minutes of meetings in a book kept for the purpose and enter in the Minutes the amounts of bills passed for payment at Branch meetings. (b) Keep a Petty Cash Book. (c) Receive the correspondence and read it to the meeting and reply as directed. (d) Preserve all relevant papers and documents. (e) Keep a complete list of members' names and addresses and forward a copy annually to Head Office. (f) Prepare the annual report of the Branch for the Annual Meeting and forward a report to the Group Secretary. (g) Perform all duties pertaining to her office as her President shall from time to time direct."

The CWA's Grievance Handling Procedure

1. Shortly after Mrs Tanya Cameron's election to the position of State President of CWA (NSW) in May 2013 (a position which she held for two years), the CWA finalised the document which made provision for its Grievance Handling Procedure.

The plaintiff's initial involvement with the CWA

1. The plaintiff became a member of the CWA in about October 2010. In about July 2011 she transferred from the Gulgong branch, which was in the Castlereagh Group, to the Wellington branch, which was in the Macquarie Group. She held the position of social secretary of the Macquarie Group from October 2011 to October 2013. As such, it was her responsibility to organise or co-ordinate the accommodation for members of the Wellington branch for the annual conferences which were held in May each year.

The Blacktown conference in May 2012

1. Every year the CWA held a conference. In 2012 the conference was held in Blacktown. Arrangements were made for representatives of the CWA attending the conference to stay at the Travelodge Blacktown from 5 to 11 May 2012. Ruth Cargill, who later became State Vice President and State Honorary Treasurer, became aware at about this time that many members of the Macquarie Group were concerned about the way the plaintiff spoke to staff at the Travelodge Blacktown. As far as Ms Cargill could recall, the plaintiff was not informed of the members' concern because, as she understood it, they were "trying to protect" the plaintiff.

The Moree conference in May 2013

1. The CWA State conference was held in Moree in May 2013. Representatives of the CWA stayed at the Spa Village Travel Inn in Moree from 3 to 10 May 2013. The plaintiff put to Ms Cargill that there could not have been complaints about her behaviour with respect to the Travelodge Blacktown if she was permitted to do the bookings for the following year. Ms Cargill responded as follows: "[W]hen people weren't happy with what you had done in Blacktown they gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a one-off, that it was a one-off in not dealing very well and not making CWA look very good to outside organisations, in that sense the Travelodge. . . . From memory there were then complaints about not - I actually don't remember and partly why it's not in the affidavit whether it was the way you spoke to the people organising it from Castlereagh Country Group and or the people organising the place that we were staying and or there was also issues with the way you spoke to the Phillip Group person who was organising our . . . dinner. So there were all of those things, and I don't remember so I couldn't swear in an affidavit which it was, but there were people concerned about the way you were presenting CWA and Macquarie Group to other people we were dealing with."

The grant to the CWA's Wellington branch

1. The federal government made a grant of $4,105 to the CWA's Wellington branch in 2013. The grant became an issue in the proceedings because the plaintiff, when she became secretary of the branch in October 2014 (see below), raised several issues regarding the probity of the branch's conduct with respect to the grant. Accordingly, it is necessary to set out the evidence relating to the grant.
2. By email dated 28 July 2013 the then Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FoHCSIA), which became the Department of Social Services, offered a grant to the Wellington branch of the CWA under a program known as Volunteer Grants 2013.
3. The terms of the funding included a term that the grantee allow the Department's representatives the right to inspect the branch's records relating to the grant for a period of up to 5 years from the completion date (cl 6). Clause 7 provided for circumstances in which the funding would have to be repaid, including if the amount of the grant was not spent at the completion date; the grantee was unable to spend the whole grant in accordance with the agreement; or that an amount was spent other than in accordance with the agreement. Clause 7.2 provided that if the grantee was obliged to repay an amount under cl 7.1, it must be repaid within 20 business days after a notice in writing had been given by the Department. There is no suggestion that the Wellington branch was ever given a notice under cl 7.2 to repay any money from the grant which had not been spent.
4. On 12 August 2013 an article appeared in the Wellington Times with the headline, "Change of time for CWA". The following appeared in the article: "The Wellington CWA has held daytime meetings for more than 90 years, but they are now considering a change following a surge in local interest among women who cannot make it during the day. 'If we are to survive, we need to change with the times,' Wellington president Pat Bell said. 'Because a lot of women are working these days.' . . . The meeting will be held at 6.30pm tonight at the CWA Hall to gauge interest in 6pm meetings. . . ."
5. The plaintiff was concerned when she read the article because she understood that something of that gravity needed to be raised at group, rather than branch, level. According to the plaintiff she raised the article with Kathie Carolan, who had been the President of the Macquarie Group from October 2012 and held the position until October 2015. I accept the defendant's submission that, in approaching Mrs Carolan before she had raised the matter with a Wellington branch meeting, the plaintiff breached reg 81 of the CWA Constitution (set out above).
6. In 2013 Ms Beverley Cameron was the secretary of the Wellington branch. On 2 September 2013, the plaintiff telephoned Mrs Carolan and complained about how long it was taking Ms Beverley Cameron to prepare the minutes of the branch meetings. Mrs Carolan explained to the plaintiff that there was no hard-and-fast rule about when the minutes of a branch meeting needed to be completed, as long as they were distributed before the following branch meeting.
7. The plaintiff was not able to attend the annual general meeting (AGM) of the Wellington branch on 25 October 2013 and gave her apologies. Although she expressed a willingness to continue as social secretary for another term she was not re-elected.

The CWA conference in Griffith in 2013

1. A CWA conference was held in August 2013 in Griffith, for which accommodation at the Kidman Wayside Inn was booked in advance for those attending. On 13 May 2013 the plaintiff emailed Debra Pinkerton, a member of the Phillip Group, in the following terms: "Macquarie Group would like to accept 10 rooms and can you have our rooms separate from Phillip Group at the Motel and put in my name of Marion Collier with the contact e-mail and telephone number of 02 68454530? I was also wondering if any of those 25 rooms are still free, please let me have first option as I will not know until our next council meeting as to the number of ladies that are interested in going to Griffith. Thank you"
2. Mrs Pinkerton responded on the same day and told her that she would be able to advise about spare rooms once the Phillip Group have had their next meeting. It appears that Mrs Pinkerton did not update the plaintiff as foreshadowed. On 12 October 2013 the plaintiff forwarded these emails to Patricia Boyer, who was then a member of the CWA Phillip Group.
3. On 16 October 2013, the plaintiff sent an email to Mrs Boyer, which was copied to Mrs Carolan, in the following terms: "Rang the Kidman this morning and am told by Sabrina the Manager that they have not heard anything from anyone. This was after a Laura told me that the only person that could do anything with the Kidman was Debra Pinkerton. I find this very unhelpful especially since Debra never followed up on what she was supposed to do and when I telephoned Shirley your Secretary and she was going to have Debra sought things out and get onto me I hear nothing for 6 weeks or more and then when I get onto you, I find out they went to India to the Conference and then onto Europe and will not be back until November. Debra might be Shirley's daughter but it is Shirley's responsibility as the Secretary for your group to ensure when an offer is made to the Macquarie Group President at the group dinner of arranging the Motel for both groups, that she should not ignore and treat the Macquarie group like fools and leave them in the dark. It is me as Social Secretary and my President that have to answer to the ladies from Macquarie not Shirley or her daughter who should have nothing to do with it. May I also point out to you that the booking was made prior to the last day of conference at Moree, obviously Debra needs to be informed that we are not permitted to do this, but the Kidman can confirm it was first tentatively booked by Debra even prior to the group dinner, so was booked without even asking Macquarie. How will the ladies from this group trust either our President or me from what [sic] mistake was not done by us but by Debra, who fair enough if she was assisting her mother, she should have ensured she was more careful and stuck to the rules, it is her mother's name she is doing it in and therefore her mother that looks bad, not her. I do hope you are able to straighten this mess out, I do not appreciate being told that I cannot do anything because on[ly] Debra can do it. I trust this will be given your earliest attention."
4. It was put to the plaintiff in cross-examination that the email she had sent to Mrs Boyer (extracted above) was a rude email which was critical of Mrs Pinkerton and her mother, Shirley. The plaintiff rejected the proposition and said: "I'm saying it's not a criticism if, in fact, it has occurred."
5. The plaintiff rejected the proposition that her email to Mrs Boyer was defamatory and explained that defamation meant that you cannot say something against someone's character that was unfounded unless it is true. The plaintiff did not accept that her email was either rude, derogatory or critical. She also rejected the possibility that Mrs Pinkerton had simply forgotten to get back to her after the next meeting of the Phillip Group, as foreshadowed in her email of 13 May 2013.
6. Mrs Boyer responded by email later on 16 October 2013 confirming that a reservation had been made. On 17 October 2013, Mrs Carolan emailed the plaintiff in the following terms: "Hi Marion, Have just realised that the email I received was a cc to me on an email you sent to Patricia. Please never send an email in that tone to another group without it being passed by me. I asked you to make enquiries on our behalf to see where we were at, NOT to accuse to ladies of Phillip Group of not treating us right. That is not how things are done in CWA. I will ring their President and apologise for your email and please pass anything you write to them through me in future."
7. The plaintiff accepted that Mrs Carolan was reprimanding her in that email but contended that the reprimand was "illegal".
8. On 18 October 2013 Mrs Carolan emailed Mrs Boyer, and copied the email to Mrs Pinkerton, in the following terms: "After speaking with you yesterday-17/10/13, I felt I had to re-iterate my most humble apology to Phillip Group members for the email my social secretary sent you re: our accommodation at Griffith. That email was sent without my knowledge and there is no way I would have approved that strong language and accusations of a fellow member. I have spoken to Marion and have a better understanding of her frustration, but that was no excuse for the tone of her email. I believe we as members of the association do not treat other members in that way. I thank you for your very generous nature to understand and forgive us for this faux par [sic]."

The plaintiff's election to the position of secretary of the Wellington branch

1. At the AGM of the Wellington branch on 11 October 2014, Ms Beverley Cameron was elected to the positions of branch president and treasurer and the plaintiff was elected to the position of branch secretary. The term of these positions was to have been for 12 months. On her appointment the plaintiff was provided with relevant branch documents in a suitcase.
2. The CWA Procedures Manual contained a detailed description of the duties of a branch secretary. Regulation 107 of the CWA Constitution (set out above) also made provision for the position. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that the branch secretary reports to the branch president and is responsible for keeping the branch president informed of all matters of branch business, preparing an agenda for branch meetings, dealing with incoming and outgoing correspondence and preparing minutes of each meeting. The plaintiff had not previously been required to prepare agendas for, or minutes of, meetings. Shortly after her election to the position of branch secretary the plaintiff familiarised herself with the CWA Constitution (and in particular reg 107) and the Procedures Manual. She understood that, as branch secretary, she was to receive all correspondence on behalf of the branch, but that the president had to approve of all outgoing correspondence. She agreed that she understood that she was not to correspond with third parties without the president's approval.
3. On 15 October 2014 Ms Beverley Cameron and the plaintiff provided their signatures to the Commonwealth Bank on a form entitled "Authority for Business Accounts" for the CWA's Wellington branch.
4. I accept the evidence of Marjorie Blatch that the plaintiff rang her in November 2014 and asked her for guidance on the duties of a branch secretary and, in particular, how the minutes should be recorded. Mrs Blatch was then the Macquarie Group secretary, a position which she held from October 2013 to October 2015. Mrs Blatch told the plaintiff: "Marion, it is the role of the branch secretary to review incoming correspondence to the branch, prepare meeting agendas for the branch meetings. Following meetings the branch secretary is responsible to record the minutes, send a copy of them to the president for approval and then ensuring that they are adopted by motion at the next branch meeting. Minutes should be recorded accurately and objectively."
5. Branch meetings of the Wellington branch were held monthly on the second Wednesday of the month.

The branch meeting on 11 November 2014

1. The first agenda prepared by the plaintiff in her position as branch secretary was prepared for the branch meeting which was scheduled for Wednesday 12 November 2014. The date was changed to Tuesday 11 November 2014 because there was a wake on Wednesday 12 November 2014. The plaintiff's agenda was distributed to those present at the meeting, who included Anne Jones, who was then the Mayor of Wellington and also member of the Wellington branch.
2. The agenda which the plaintiff prepared for the November 2014 meeting contained the following item with respect to the federal grant referred to above: "Any Other Items for General Business 1. The Treasurer is asked to produce the receipt/s of items brought with the $4,005.00 grant money for, [sic] "fittings" earlier this year to the members. No reference to the loan has been received in the handover papers to the Secretary----- items said to be brought [sic] are not on site i.e. a laminator, however, there are;-- 2 Gazebo, --- why do we need 1 let alone 2? 1 paper cutter. 1 Brother printer plus spare cartridges. 1 Public address system. 2 boxes of reams of Reflex paper. 2 Ottomans"
3. The plaintiff accepted that during the meeting she noted in handwriting on her copy of the agenda next to that item, "disgussed [sic, discussed] and sorted out".
4. Mrs Jones recalled that, during the course of the meeting on 11 November 2014, the plaintiff spoke over other people, including Ms Beverley Cameron who, as branch president, was chairing the meeting.
5. Following the meeting, the plaintiff prepared the minutes by amending and adding to the agenda which she had prepared for the meeting. The plaintiff included in the minutes for the November 2014 meeting under "General Business" the following: "It was brought up that we had a $4,500 loan which purchased some fittings not necessarily agreed to by the members and there is no suitable documentation with regards to this. Mrs Jones pointed out that all cheque butts should be kept, as all the things brought should have been by cheque and that this information has to be kept for 7 years for, in this case the State Government to check what we brought [sic], which is;--- 2 Gazebos, 2 ottomans, 1 Printer + extra cartridges + 2 Boxes of Reflex paper, some crockery and a Wireless Sound System., 1 guillotine."
6. Ms Chrysanthou, who appeared with Mr Dean on behalf of the defendant, asked the plaintiff in cross-examination to identify any issue relating to the grant, to which the plaintiff's response was: "Because as when I - I think I started the balance sheet before and I was told that - by your Honour that she only needed the basic points - was the fact that when I got the role of secretary I had to chase around to try and locate things, and as the secretary's role says, I was supposed to hold all the paperwork and correspondence and - and whatnot. And nobody had any documentation. I had been given different figures as to the amount. I went back to the old minutes and it was a State Government grant. And I had to run around because the members' officers were - we were changing, Wellington was becoming part of Dubbo and it was supposed to fall - Orange didn't want to know about it. Then Dubbo told me that they weren't interested in us until - and this was this same Darren - until such time as we were in their electorate. And so I rang back and got a lovely [sic] at Andrew Gee's office who said, 'Well, I'll chase it up for you,' and she rang back and told me it was a Federal Government grant. So because I had so many questions asked and there were, you know, that nobody could answer, I said, 'Look, I'm bringing it up in general business because if anyone gets into trouble it's me, not you' - to Bev Cameron, who was the secretary, or the secretary before you - even though I had nothing to do with it. I'm the holder of the position now, so it's me that'll be asked questions."
7. The minutes of the meeting of 11 November 2014 also contained the following item under "General Business": "Mrs Marion Collier is meeting with Mr Michael Tolhurst, General Manager of Wellington Council with regards to the flower beds on the road, as we, the Museum and the Catholic Church were not informed of them being constructed."

Concerns raised about the content of agendas and minutes prepared by the plaintiff

1. In about November 2014 Ms Beverley Cameron rang Mrs Blatch to ask for advice about the contents of the agenda and minutes which the plaintiff had prepared for the November 2014 meeting. She was concerned that the plaintiff had included "personal and inappropriate comments" in these documents. Mrs Blatch advised her to speak to the plaintiff about it and then take it up with Mrs Carolan. At about this time Patricia Bell, a member of the Wellington branch, telephoned Mrs Blatch and told her of her concern that the plaintiff was interrupting and speaking over the top of people in the Wellington branch meetings. Mrs Blatch suggested that she speak to Ms Beverley Cameron or Mrs Carolan about it.

The cleaning of the CWA hall in January 2015

1. In December 2014 it appears that Steve King, who had been the cleaner for the CWA hall in Wellington, had resigned as of 31 December 2014. Helen Norris, a Vice President of the Wellington branch, had apparently asked him to clean for the month of January 2015. Mrs Norris did not inform the executive of the Wellington branch what she had done. Separately, the plaintiff, with the concurrence of Ms Beverley Cameron and Joan Snelson, another member of the executive of the Wellington branch, had arranged for Robert Collier (the plaintiff's ex-husband with whom she continued to cohabit), to clean the hall. Mrs Norris, who was at the time indisposed with shingles, was unaware of the separate arrangement made by the plaintiff.
2. On 30 January 2015 the plaintiff wrote to Mrs Norris in the following terms: "I do not appreciate being undermined as Secretary of Wellington CWA branch. I have been informed that you gave permission for Steve King to clean for the month of January, when he had resigned as of the 31st December 2014. I just hope the branch does not mind paying the $112, which it now has cost us. Also, we are just lucky that he did not have an accident, as he would not have been covered. You as a VP [Vice President], does not constitute the executive of the branch."
3. When Ms Chrysanthou put to the plaintiff that the further engagement of Mr King had nothing to do with undermining her, she responded: "Well, she undermined me in the respect that I was the secretary of the branch. I had received his resignation letter, I had to speak to the others and say, 'What are we going to do, or do we call the members back,' which I did in November. 'Do we call them back to work out what to do?' and it was agreed that, well, if Mr Collier wants to do the cleaning until February that's fine, and then we'll do it when we have our normal branch meeting. And suddenly we've got somebody - we don't know who, running around the building with toilet rolls that didn't belong, with garbage bins put out that weren't put out, with all sorts of things being done, and basically nobody had said anything and I was supposed to be responsible as secretary for what was going on and didn't have the Earth [sic]."
4. The plaintiff sought to explain in her evidence why she took such exception to Mrs Norris arranging for Mr King to continue to clean after he had resigned. Her reasons appear from the following evidence she gave in cross-examination: "Mrs Norris out‑stepped her position, and she had no authority to tell Mr King that he could go back and clean the hall without speaking, because the executives, as usual, had permission in the recess break, from November to February, to make decisions that were vital to the running of the organisation, and if she was going to give him permission, by right, she had to have at least two other executives to agree with her."
5. The plaintiff rejected the proposition that her reaction to Mr King being asked by Mrs Norris to clean the hall in January 2015 was "over the top", although she accepted that Mrs Norris, as a member of the executive, had the same voting powers as she did. The following exchange occurred in her cross-examination: "Q. You responded inappropriately to what was really quite a trivial matter. A. Well, no, I didn't, because if Mr King had an accident in the hall and became a quadriplegic, then the Country Women's Association, Wellington branch, would have lost anything and everything we had in the bank, and the building would have probably been sold by the association, as they own it, to pay for the compensation that he was entitled to."
6. When it was put to the plaintiff that Mr Collier was not a "proper employee" either, she sought to distinguish Mr Collier's situation from Mr King's on the basis that Mr Collier was only doing "minor cleaning" and was not going up ladders or doing lawns.

The agenda for the meeting on 11 February 2015

1. Due to the Christmas break, the next meeting of the Wellington branch of the CWA took place on Wednesday 11 February 2015. The agenda included the following items: "CORRESPONDENCE IN: . . . 15. Copy of the lease from Michael Holmes Solicitor --- Multi-Purpose requested a copy of same, before they contacted us. … 32. Darren rang from Troy Grant's office and again lied, said the money for the garden beds was from Bungarra??? [sic, Cobbora], for the beautification of the CBD, the CWA building, is not in the CBD area. . . . CORRESPONDENCE OUT: . . . 3. Meeting with Mr. Michael Tolhurst, then General Manger [sic, Manager] of Wellington Council, on Thursday, the 13th November 2014, to garden beds on then 4 corners - He said, RMS gave a grant, to make the corners safer for children crossing to get to their buses, outside the Church of England 4. Telephoned RMS, they knew nothing of this. 5. Contacted Troy Grants office, re the lies told about the RMS. Also failure of Andrew Gee to notify all residents of the upcoming changing, electoral boundaries. 6. Contacted Paul Toole's office, on both my own and the deception over the flower beds, as well as, the out servicing of council, so was unable to have a discussion with any person from, the building department on Monday, as there was no-one, as well as no reply for a requested meeting. . . . GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. Steve King has resigned and pressured us to employ someone, at present, Bob Collier [the plaintiff's husband] is doing such. What do we want? . . . 5. On arrival at the Hail yesterday afternoon, Marion [the plaintiff] observed the hall, left untidy and unclean by the bridge Group, she has asked them in the past to clean up after themselves and it is no good pushing a Hall agreement to be signed, as they are only paying $10 per hour, with a second toilet, there is no need for any less than $15 per hour to be charged. She would like to submit a letter outlining the faults found and that, the Hall will be inspected after their use from now on and a charge of $30 will be charged for having to put the Hall in the condition they found it. . . . 17. Mrs. Marion Collier is to meet with Mr Michael Tolhurst, -- with regards to 'no communication' before the in [sic] installation of ridiculous garden beds, @at 2.00PM on Thursday 13th November 2014--- we have lost 2 car spaces and it has made driving hazards [sic] on all 4 corners." [Emphasis added to indicate the matters particularly relied on by the defendant as being inappropriate inclusions.]

Item 15 (the leases): Correspondence In

1. The plaintiff gave evidence that she was asked by Mrs Carolan, then President of the Macquarie Group, to locate a copy of the leases and told by Mrs Carolan that if she did not find the leases and put them in the front of the minute book she would be either "put out of [her] job" or expelled from the CWA. I do not accept the plaintiff's evidence, which was denied by Mrs Carolan. I am satisfied that the plaintiff alone initiated a search for the leases. The plaintiff contacted the CWA's solicitor to locate a copy of the leases, without the authority of the branch president.

Item 32 (the garden beds): Correspondence In

1. In cross-examination the plaintiff explained that she was concerned that the garden beds which had been constructed outside the hall were impeding access to the footpath and had caused the loss of two parking spaces. She spoke with the General Manager of the local council, as well as the Roads and Maritime Services. Eventually she was directed to speak to Troy Grant, who was the State member for Dubbo. She was put on to a person in Mr Grant's office and left her phone number. Some time later, a man called Darren, whom she understood to be Mr Grant's executive assistant, rang her back and told her that the money for the garden beds had been donated by a mining concern for the beautification of the central business district.
2. When the plaintiff was cross-examined about item 32 in the agenda in which she had alleged that Darren had lied, she responded: "Well, he did, because he rang me up and said he'd checked."
3. Ms Chrysanthou put to the plaintiff that it was a very serious thing to accuse someone of lying. The plaintiff gave a number of responses, some of which were non-responsive ones as follows: "I think it was a very serious thing that he had a couple of members that were nearly run over when we lost two parking spots and these flower beds stuck out and people had a swing and could very nearly - and they did very nearly collect a couple of people at different times. . . . Well, given that these - as far as I know, these minutes have not even being ratified. . . . [When the plaintiff was reminded that the document was an agenda] Well, the agenda isn't an official document. . . . Not when it [the agenda] was supposed to be within the members within the branch who - it shouldn't have gone any further. You know, it could have been said - it was a sheer decency that they were getting it in writing on the day. I didn't have to do - there was no rule I have to pass out an agenda to anybody."
4. The following exchange in the plaintiff's cross-examination is one of many examples of her tendency to justify and aggravate derogatory remarks: "Q. So you think it's no big deal that you've accused this man of being a repeated liar in this document? A. Well, I wasn't just accusing him. I mean, I lived in the area. I knew what people knew of him."
5. The plaintiff tendered a letter addressed to her from the Wellington Council dated 19 February 2015 which said: "Council wishes to confirm the following: 1. Subsequent to safety concerns from St Mary's Catholic school about the road crossing on the corner of Warne and Percy Street, a report was directed to the Wellington Traffic Committee. The committee is made up of representative from Council, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Orana Police and a member of the public representing the local member of parliament. During this process a decision was made to investigate the site at which time the RMS designed and granted Wellington Council funds to make the corner safer. 2. The garden beds along Percy Street were designed and funded by the Wellington Council as part of the Wellington street scape beautification program. 3. Wellington Central Business District Beautification project is being funded by the Cobbora Transition fund of $1,607,255, of this money only $58,021 has been spent on project management and it is expected the works to start in the early part of this year."
6. I infer from this letter that the plaintiff made enquiries of the Wellington Council about these matters. She did so without consultation with the executive of the Wellington branch.

Items 3-6: Correspondence Out

1. In cross-examination the plaintiff did not accept that she was also suggesting that Mr Tolhurst, the General Manager of Wellington Council, had also lied to her.
2. The plaintiff did not accept that the matters of a critical or personal nature ought not to have been included in the agenda, as appears from the following exchange: "Q. I want to suggest to you, Ms Collier, that the allegation that you've made throughout this page of the agenda about lies and deception were highly inappropriate things to put in this meeting agenda. A. No, they weren't, because the agenda is not an official document. The agenda was for solely for the member's knowledge and I suppose I could have sat there until now and have gone into full detail of what went on, but I had to try and abbreviate it as best I could, and was basically letting my members know without anyone saying, 'Well, look, you didn't tell us the full story.'"

Item 1 (Steve King): General business

1. The plaintiff did not accept in cross-examination that it was inappropriate for her to use the word "pressuring" in the agenda for this item or that it implied criticism of Mr King.

Item 5 (the state of the hall): General business

1. The plaintiff was cross-examined about what she had included in the agenda about the state of the CWA hall in Wellington. She asserted that the reference to the bridge group was a mistake and it should have been a reference to the Assembly of God, which also used the hall. She alleged that item 5 was in fact dealing with two separate things. She refused to accept that the paragraph meant what it said and was being critical of a group using the hall.

The minutes of the meeting on 11 February 2015

1. The meeting of the Wellington branch on 11 February 2015 was chaired by Mrs Beverley Cameron. It is common ground that, at some stage in the meeting, Mrs Beverley Cameron left the meeting in a state of emotional upset. When it was put to the plaintiff that what had caused Ms Beverley Cameron to leave the meeting was the plaintiff's own conduct in interrupting and talking over other people, she denied that she had ever interrupted anyone or spoken over anyone at the meeting. The plaintiff accepted that Ms Beverley Cameron was emotional when she left the meeting but did not accept that the plaintiff herself was the cause.
2. Following the meeting on 11 February 2015 the plaintiff, as branch secretary, prepared minutes, which totalled 6 pages. The minutes included the following: "The President then asked, minutes of the previous meeting, are then any corrections? Pat Bell, said the grant, which material is attached to the minutes of the previous meeting, was for $4050, not the $4,500 as stated. [The information from the Federal not State Government, is for $4105 and for items never purchased, which is provided with reports]. . . . The President then commenced reading the Incoming Correspondence, items 1-35, 34-35 handed to the Secretary prior to the commencement of the meeting. Item 6, a letter sent to the President, requesting a 2nd Toilet. [[P]resident hasn't provided to the Secretary for filing]. . . . Whilst the President, read the Incoming Correspondence, Debbie Wynne, interjected when it was stated without inverted commas, when Mr. Michael Tolhurst of Wellington Council, did not say Anglican Church, rather the Church of England. . . . TREASURER'S REPORT: Debbie Wynne stood up and informed the room, I have placed documents on your tables Bank reconciliation is available, isn't that brilliant? [The first time the Secretary was aware of such, the 5 pages are marked Treasurer's report and included in the Minutes book]. . . . REPORTS: November Group Council Meeting: The Secretary was to give this, the President overlooked it. . . . INERNATIONAL [sic]: Mrs Helen Norris gratefully presented the Branch, with an Italian flag, courtesy of her sone [sic] and daughter-in-law, which was accepted by Mrs Bell and Ms. Cameron, a photograph was taken. Mrs Norris had also given Ms. Cameron a traditional Italian dress, which the President said she had put in the International cupboard on Monday, it was not shown. . . . General Business: The President pointed out, that Steve King had resigned in December and sent a bill for continuing to clean in January, she would not discuss the fact that the bill had been paid, along with a receipt for $12 for toilet rolls, when we have many in storage. After informing that Mr. King wanted us to employ someone, that he suggested and that Bob Collier was at present looking after the Hall at no cost, the President asked what we wanted to do? Immediately, she suggested, that Debbie Wynne, who she said does Home Care work and can only get part time work, could do with the money. . . . After the Secretary was left to run the meeting on her own for approximately 10 minutes, on the return of the President, without any explanation, she told the Secretary, that she was not doing her job and was not abiding by CWA rules." [Emphasis added to indicate particular matters relied on by the defendant as inappropriate for inclusion in the minutes.]
3. The plaintiff included in brackets matters pertaining to the grant information about a matter which did not occur at the meeting and which reflected her subsequent investigation. The plaintiff did not accept in cross-examination that she was criticising Mrs Bell, for getting the grant figure incorrect; Ms Beverley Cameron, for not providing the letter concerning the second toilet to the plaintiff for filing, for not getting the traditional dress out of the cupboard, for allowing extra funds to be used for toilet rolls, for suggesting that Debbie Wynne, a member of the Wellington branch, ought get the job of cleaning the hall and for leaving the meeting; and Mrs Wynne, for interjecting and raising the matter about the reference to the Anglican Church and not providing the treasurer's report to her earlier. The plaintiff demonstrated no insight into the effect on others of the words she used in the minutes.
4. The treasurer's report, which was tabled at the meeting of 11 February 2015, contained the following passages: "Due to an error in addition I found the petty cash balance is $110.00. There are 2 options available here for this error. 1. The meeting can move a motion to increase the imprest amount of Petty Cash from $100.00 to $110.00 OR 2. Money taken from the Petty cash and placed back into the bank account. . . . A reconciliation of both Wellington Bridge Club and AOG (Assembly of God) need to be completed to verify their payments. At a quick glance at the time of the completion of this report, AOG is behind by $150.00 and there is no payment for January. . . . "
5. The minutes which the plaintiff had prepared following the meeting of 11 February 2015 recorded acceptance (subject to the matters referred to above) of the minutes of the meeting of 11 November 2014. The plaintiff contended that if any member had had an issue with the minutes not being a true record of what had transpired at the meeting, the member would have raised the issue at the meeting on 11 February 2014. She submitted that if she had, as alleged, interrupted or spoken over people at the meeting of 11 November 2014, someone would have raised it on 11 February 2015 and asked that it be noted in the minutes for 11 November 2015. I reject this submission, which overlooks the nature of minutes and what is to be included in them. Minutes are not intended to be a transcript of what is said at a meeting. They are to be a record of resolutions made on matters appearing on the agenda. I do not infer from the absence of any mention to the plaintiff's speaking over or interrupting others who were present at the meeting that it did not occur. Indeed, as referred to above, I accept the evidence of Mrs Jones that that the plaintiff did speak over people and interrupt them at the meeting of 11 November 2014.
6. The minutes which the plaintiff had prepared following the meeting of 11 February 2015 were rewritten by Ms Cargill, who by that time was State Vice President of CWA (NSW), before the meeting of 11 March 2015 to remove personal comments which were regarded as inappropriate (see further below).

Communications between the plaintiff and Mrs Carolan following the meeting

1. At 16.43pm on 11 February 2015 the plaintiff emailed Mrs Carolan, in the following terms: "I wish to make a formal complaint about the way I am being treated by my President. I am being undermined by her and believe the rule book has been thrown out the window."
2. The plaintiff followed up her email with a further email to Mrs Carolan sent on 12 February 2015 at 8.13am (which attached the treasurer's report) which began as follows: "This document [a reference to the treasurer's report, extracted above] was thrown on my table yesterday, as the meeting was commencing, along with the paperwork from your facts day. I take strong offence of the implication that I have defrauded the CWA, which is at best scandalous."
3. The plaintiff referred to the balance of the petty cash book in the following paragraphs and concluded the email with a suggestion that the group treasurer needs "to look at this".
4. At about 8.30am on 12 February 2015, the plaintiff telephoned Mrs Carolan and said: "Kathie, I would like some advice on exactly what is involved in the branch secretary's duties. I feel like I'm being bullied at my Wellington branch, and if it doesn't stop, I'm going to resign."
5. Mrs Carolan responded: "Marion, as the branch secretary for Wellington, it is your responsibility to review all incoming correspondence, prepare the agenda for the branch meetings, to take notes at the branch meeting and prepare minutes. Those minutes should be distributed to the president prior to the next branch meeting for any corrections. Subject to that, the minutes should then be adopted at the following branch meeting."
6. At 10.24am on 12 February 2015, following this conversation, Mrs Carolan emailed the plaintiff and informed her that she (Mrs Carolan) had asked for the Macquarie group treasurer (who was then Barbara Barrett) to be in attendance on 11 March 2015, which was the next scheduled meeting of the Wellington branch.
7. Later that day, in the afternoon, Mrs Carolan received two further phone calls from the plaintiff in which she complained that she had been accused of defrauding the CWA because there was a discrepancy in reimbursement of petty cash of 13c.
8. In cross-examination the plaintiff confirmed that she considered that she had been accused of fraud because of the $10 discrepancy in petty cash. It appears that because she was a co-signatory to the CWA's bank account with the Commonwealth Bank, the plaintiff considered that any reference to a discrepancy in the petty cash book implicated her in an allegation of fraud. The plaintiff refused to accept that an error in calculation was not tantamount to an allegation of fraud. She denied that her allegation that she had been falsely accused of fraud was derogatory and defamatory of those whom she had accused. The plaintiff did not accept that she was in breach of regs 80 (the requirement for a branch to manage its own business) and 81 (the prohibition on putting the matter before the Group Council unless the same has been stated to a branch meeting) in communicating with Mrs Carolan about this matter.

Communications between the plaintiff and Mrs Wynne following the February 2015 meeting

1. At 9.23am on 12 February 2015, Mrs Wynne wrote to the plaintiff in the following terms: "Could you please send me more info on the mental health thing."
2. The reference to "mental health thing" was a reference to a matter that had arisen at the meeting on 11 February 2015 at which those present were informed that there was to be an evening on mental health awareness at the Wellington Soldiers Club on Friday 20 February 2015 which was to be conducted by the Western Local Area Health District and hosted by the Lions Club. The plaintiff took great exception to the content and tone of Mrs Wynne's email. When it was put to her in cross-examination that it was a "perfectly pleasant email", she said: "A. No, I don't class it as a perfectly pleasant email, given that I was secretary and she was just a member."
3. The plaintiff explained her objections to Mrs Wynne's email as follows: "It wasn't her [Mrs Wynne's] place to be sending an email just in effect demanding the information." The plaintiff also said, "It wasn't her place. She was asking - she wanted all the information on it, as if, you know - how would I put it? She was waiting [for] the information. I felt that it was very rude given that the day before she had given an inaccurate treasurer's report balance as the treasurer, and she wasn't the treasurer."
4. The plaintiff responded to Mrs Wynne's email at 11.20 am on 12 February 2015 in the following terms: "It is at the Soldiers Club on the 20th, the Lions are catering, starting at 7.00PM, I have not been provided with anything further of relevance, I believe I said all that yesterday. If you wish to go, let me know and I have to advice [sic] them by the 17th, as to how many are going for catering purposes. What is the Facebook and e-mail, you asked Bev to mention, that we [Wellington CWA Branch] now have?" [Emphasis added to indicate matter particularly relied on by defendant.]
5. The reference in the email to Facebook was a reference to the plaintiff's understanding that Mrs Wynne had set up a Facebook page for the Wellington branch. When the plaintiff had not received a response from Mrs Wynne by 12.09pm on 12 February 2015 (less than an hour after she sent the email extracted above) she wrote a further email to Ms Wynne which said, in part: "Would you still please answer the question I asked? What is this about a branch Facebook and e-mail?"
6. At 12.33pm on 12 February 2015 Mrs Wynne wrote to the plaintiff in part as follows: "I wanted to pass the information onto Peter Fotikis from the Anglican Church. Peter does a lot of work with mental health and hasn't seen the info yet."
7. At 13.12pm on 12 February 2015 Mrs Wynne wrote another email to the plaintiff in the following terms: "Will do when I get home. Out volunteer [sic] with bloom field [a mental hospital in Orange] at the moment."
8. The plaintiff explained her reaction to this email from Mrs Wynne in the following terms: "Well, I thought it was a bit strange, because we're talking about a woman, the day before, who needed the money to be the cleaner, because she couldn't get proper work, and she is travelling 106 kilometres each way to volunteer [to the Bloomfield Mental Hospital in Orange]. It sounded a bit unusual . . . what I . . . thought was, the amount of money it costs for petrol, to travel 212 long kilometres"
9. The following day, Friday 13 February 2015, at 10.28am, the plaintiff again wrote to Mrs Wynne. She said in part: "Yesterday, you contacted me as your branch Secretary, about information of an upcoming event in Wellington [the mental health evening on 20 February 2015]. You were provided with the same information given to the branch meeting and discussed. . . . I in the original reply, stated: "What is the Facebook and e-mail, you asked Bev to mention, that we [Wellington CWA Branch] now have?" You replied, also that you were unable to reply with that information, as you were away from home, until last night. Since that was 24 hours ago, could you please answer the question asked of you? As Secretary of Wellington CWA, I am responsible for all Branch correspondence, therefore, I should be fully aware of what transcribes, such as with Facebook, e-mail, or the like, in the name of the branch. I do hope you can address this in a swift manner, prior to our March meeting." [Emphasis in original.]
10. At 14.53pm on 13 February 2015 Mrs Wynne emailed the plaintiff in the following terms: "I will discuss the email & Facebook with you when our branch president is available to do so. As for other matter I will also discuss this with branch president present."
11. The plaintiff confirmed in her cross-examination that she considered this email from Mrs Wynne to be "bullying". It became one of the subjects of her complaint to Mrs Carolan referred to below. The plaintiff's explanation for considering it to be bullying appears from the following exchange in cross-examination: "Q. . . . How is this email bullying? A. Because she knew enough to go and open a new Facebook and she was told at the Gilgandra meeting by the group president that the only email she could open was one for treasury and she had no rights to open a Facebook page."
12. The plaintiff also confirmed that she thought "the whole intention of that [email] was to bully and she was . . . bullying a member of the executive" and that there was "nothing polite about it [Mrs Wynne's email]".
13. It was plain from her cross-examination that the plaintiff had no idea how offensive her emails were or how officious her insistence on the urgency of a response might appear to the recipients.

Communications between Ms Beverley Cameron and Mrs Tanya Cameron on 13 February 2015

1. On about 13 February 2015 Ms Beverley Cameron rang Mrs Tanya Cameron, who was still the State President of CWA (NSW), and told her that she was having a problem with the plaintiff. She told her that the plaintiff was making defamatory and untrue comments in the meeting minutes about local members and even politicians. She also told Mrs Tanya Cameron that the plaintiff was "constantly talking over the top of other members and interrupting". Mrs Tanya Cameron reminded her of the Grievance Handling Procedure and advised her to try to talk to the plaintiff directly about the issues. Mrs Tanya Cameron also said that if that approach did not work, she should approach Mrs Carolan in her capacity as the Macquarie Group President.

Communications by the plaintiff to instrumentalities regarding the grant to the CWA

1. On 13 February 2015 the plaintiff rang the office of the local State Member of Parliament and was told that the grant to the Wellington branch would have been a federal grant. She then rang the local Federal Member of Parliament to ask about the grant and was given the phone number for the Department of Social Services. She rang the Department and left her details. A man named Keith rang her from the Department to answer her questions about the grant. When it was put to the plaintiff that she was not authorised to make any of those phone calls, she insisted that she was and explained that, "at the time, my president wasn't acting like my president". The plaintiff's response was typical of many responses which indicated that she did not consider herself to be bound by the rules that applied to other members of the CWA.
2. At 2.22pm on 13 February 2015 the plaintiff sent an email to "Keith" in the following terms: "I am Secretary of the Wellington CWA, I have taken over in the last couple of months. We apparently received a FaHCSIA grant on 23rd or about 23rd September 2013. At the time, the Secretary's e-mail was [PROVIDED] and the President was [PROVIDED]. I was originally led to believe that it was a State Government grant, from our minutes book and that it was for $4,500. Now the claim is that it was for $4,050, whilst the same numbers, it makes a difference in the different order, also it was Federal and not State. I trust you are able to assist us, our postal address is CWA Wellington, P.O. Box 190, Wellington 2820. My telephone number is 02 68453622, you have my e-mail. It was for fittings, not fixtures. I look forward to hearing from you."
3. It appears that the matter was referred to the Collector of Public Monies within the Department of Social Services, which led to the Collector of Public Monies responding to the plaintiff by email sent at 7.30am on 15 February 2015. This email confirmed that a grant of $4,105 was made to the CWA on 23 September 2013 to purchase various named items and that the amount was paid into the bank account of the Wellington branch.
4. In her affidavit sworn 27 February 2017, the plaintiff referred to the email communication of 15 February 2015 and said that it proved that Mrs Bell, Ms Beverley Cameron and Fiona Shepherd, a member of the Wellington branch, committed a criminal act by receiving the grant. The plaintiff did not refer, in that affidavit, to the subsequent communications (which are referred to below) she had received from the Department of Social Services which confirmed that the grant had been appropriately dealt with and that no wrongdoing associated with the grant had been detected.
5. The plaintiff did not accept that her conduct in contacting the Department of Social Services was a breach of reg 86 of the CWA Constitution which prohibits a member approaching a Government Department without the consent and approval of the Executive Committee.

Further communications from the plaintiff to Mrs Carolan

1. On Friday 13 February 2015 Mrs Carolan told the plaintiff that she was not to go to the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of the CWA. On 14 February 2015 at 4.08 pm the plaintiff emailed Mrs Carolan. Her email began: "Thought I had best send this onto you. Bob [Mr Collier] went down to clean the hall and checked documents on the floor, they were 3 receipts, 2 with the 5th December 2014 and 1 undated."
2. Mr Collier gave evidence that he found three receipts in the CWA hall at Wellington and he photocopied them and gave them to the plaintiff.
3. In her email to Mrs Carolan referred to above, the plaintiff mentioned the receipts, which were apparently for rent paid by the Bridge Club and the Assembly of God, both of which hired the hall which the CWA owned in Wellington. She continued: "I now know why in the minutes I was 'Gagged from any further contact with the Bridge Club, if they ring you, put them onto me and tell them your-president has refused to let you talk to them. . . . On Tuesday, the Secretary of the Bridge Club, Sue Owens 68452564, rang and left a 101 message she then rang Bev, the plug had been left in the was[h] basin in the sink for the toilet. Bev told me it was the Assembly of God, as she had not been in the Hall for well over a week. Bob had been cleaning and there was neither water or plug in the basin on Monday when he was there. Also in the minutes when Helen Norris presents the Italian Flag to Wellington, from her son and daughter-in-law, who live in Italy, Bev says: "I won't get the traditional dress out of the International cupboard, I put it in there on my way home from your place on MONDAY afternoon." I class all this, as bullying by my president and Debbie Wynne, given the e-mail received by her yesterday. As I am also a signatory on the cheques, do you want me to get a copy of all bank statements since I became a signatory?" [Emphasis added to indicate the particular passages relied on by the defendant as inappropriate.]
4. When the plaintiff was asked in cross-examination why she had not simply given the receipts, which had been photocopied for her by Mr Collier, to the branch treasurer, she responded that Ms Beverley Cameron was not speaking to her. The gist of the email was put to the plaintiff in the following exchange in cross-examination: "Q. So you're trying to imply there, aren't you, with your lengthy email about the receipts and about the rents and other matters that the reason you weren't allowed to talk to the bridge club is because your president had engaged in some sort of impropriety and was trying to cover it up. Isn't that what you're trying to imply there? A. Quite honestly, yes, she was."
5. When it was put to the plaintiff that she was making serious allegations in the email about Ms Cameron and accusing her of lying her response was, "I'm not making allegations. I'm stating the fact."
6. A few minutes later, at 4.30pm on 14 February 2015, Mrs Carolan emailed the plaintiff in the following terms: "Thank you for the email, DON'T GET THE STATEMENTS YOU ARE NOT TREASURER. I have told you this will all be dealt with at the alloted [sic] meeting on 11th March. Please read your rules as I have asked you twice now as Group President to not contact anyone and follow through on things outside you[r] job as secretary. I will not be responding to any further emails or phone calls til said meeting. You will get your chance to voice your concerns the same as any other member at the meeting."
7. The plaintiff accepted in cross-examination that she understood from this email that she was not to go to the bank.

The plaintiff's communications with Donna Wilkins (the CEO of the CWA)

1. On 15 February 2015 at 3.54pm the plaintiff sent an email to Donna Wilkins, who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CWA (NSW) until April 2016. She attached to the email her emails to Mrs Carolan as well as her emails to Mrs Wynne. The plaintiff's email to Mrs Wilkins said, in part, as follows: ". . . I believe that a lost [sic, lot] is going on in Wellington Branch, it is also obvious, that Mrs Carolan does not want the Group to deal with it, particularly until after the Macquarie Group Council meeting on the 2nd March 2015, that is despite my asking for such. It was my President who disrupted the meeting on Wednesday afternoon at Wellington [on 11 February 2015], she walked out of the room, being away for about 10 minutes or more and not asking either Vice President to take the meeting. I am being prevented from executing my position as Branch Secretary, which as well you know, I have full responsibility for all communications within the branch. I am also providing via this e-mail, e-mail communication with a member of Wellington, who did not become a financial member until November 2014, but who presented "MY TREASURER'S Report on Wednesday (incomplete and full of inaccuracies). It is obvious from that Communication, that this women and indeed Group is preventing me from executing my role as Branch Secretary. . . . After telling her some things, including that I would contact Pat, as she should not be going behind Pat's back, also, "Bev was no clean potato. . . At the AGM, which was held on Saturday 11th October 2014, immediately prior to our monthly meeting, which is back to its 2nd Wednesday of the month, a lady by the name of Debbie Wynne arrived. It appears, she attends craft with our President and relieved the Home-Care employee, for 1/2 hour just before that at a member's home. The President wanted Debbie to be our Treasurer, as we were all told, that she was a qualified Accountant, Mrs Yeo informed her, that she had to be a financial member for 6 months and she at that stage was not even a member, financial or otherwise. I invited this woman to lunch with us, she declined, I rang her the next day and welcomed her to the CWA, I rang her to remind her of the November meeting and because she left early, I rang to see everything was alright. I rang and invited her to our Christmas Lunch on 15th December, although she accepted, she did not attend without an [sic] notice. I rang her to remind her of our February meeting, had to leave a message on her voice-mail. I have done everything in my power to treat her with curtsey [sic] and respectfully. There is no need for the e-mail treatment that I have received, which was sent to both the Group President and Group-Secretary. At the Branch meeting on Wednesday, I was told by my President in the meeting: "You are banned from any further communication with the Bridge Club [rent the Hall on Tuesday mornings and Thursday evenings]. If Sue Owens [Secretary] rings you, tell her your President has gagged you and put her onto me. . . . The other people who rent our Hall, the Assembly of God, use the Hall on Sundays and pay $50 a week rent. The supposed Treasury Report again is incorrect, in that I received a telephone call last Monday afternoon from a lady, who informed me. She had taken over the books for the Church and they had changed their bank account from Dubbo to a Wellington Bank, 2 of their Direct Debits, for 28th November and 5th December, had not gone through and they wanted to arrange payment. I took her details for the President, as I informed her was also the Treasurer, so that she could check the bank statements before ringing her back and without keeping her on hold. I was informed that all had been straightened out, obviously from the inference of the Church's dishonesty, according to the Treasury Report, the Treasurer has not taken any notice of anything said to her. Following the last e-mail received from my Group President, it seems it is going to either be swept under the carpet or I am going to wear the blame for what I have not done. . . . As for the knowingly illegal claim in the meeting, where the President stated: "This next point, Marion and I disagree on it, she went out and got herself a quote on a 2nd Toilet." She then got up from the table and on her way out the front door said: "I don't want anything more to do with this, we will lose our insurance cover even if we put a door in the wall to use the Show Society toilet. . . . The appropriate action would have been to ask, not to assume I am a crook, as it was the President that was the person who did the addition and was wrong. . . . I truly believe that given the Debbie Wynne e-mails and the e-mail last night from my Group President, I am being prevented from performing my duties, of Wellington CWA Branch Secretary. . . ." [Emphasis added to indicate the passages particularly relied on by the defendant as inappropriate.]
2. The plaintiff did not accept that Mrs Carolan was dealing with her concerns by responding to her emails and phone calls and said, "She had not done a thing. . . She might have palavered, but she did not do anything to sort the matter out." The plaintiff accepted that she had not been authorised by her branch president to communicate with Mrs Wilkins and explained that she felt nonetheless justified in sending the email: ". . . because of the fact that the president was under investigation and I felt I was being poorly treated, and ignored, and got the distinct impression that everything was being done to suit them."
3. In cross-examination the plaintiff insisted that the treasurer's report implied that the Assembly of God was dishonest because of the mention that it was behind in its rent. The plaintiff did not accept that she was in breach of reg 81 in making a complaint to Mrs Wilkins before raising the matter at branch level.
4. On 16 February 2015 at 8.24am the plaintiff sent a further email to Mrs Wilkins in which she referred to the grant. She said, in part: "What occurs now, it looks to me, like Wellington has defrauded the Federal Government, as I was of the opinion, as discussed in November when Anne Jones OAM, who is helping Treasury, for what the President/ Treasurer gives her. Well anyway she said that if they require information on what was purchased they can question for up to 7 years." [Emphasis added.]
5. In cross-examination the plaintiff accepted that she had made a serious statement (that the branch had committed a criminal offence) and insisted, "my branch did engage in a criminal offence". Once again, the plaintiff's answer reflected her view that she was justified in making the statement because she considered herself to have proof, as appears in the following exchange concerning the allegation of fraud: "Q. Mrs Collier, you are making disgraceful allegations about other members of the Country Women's Association. A. No, I'm not, because I've got the proof."

The plaintiff's communication with Jackie Camiller

1. On 16 February 2015 the plaintiff sent an email to Jackie Camiller, who appears to have worked at the head office of CWA (NSW), raising concerns about two leases, for which the CWA was lessor. She told Mrs Camiller that she had forwarded the paperwork to "Donna" (presumably Mrs Wilkins) to be passed to the State President. In her evidence the plaintiff alleged that the leases were "against the CWA Constitution" and raised issues about their execution. The latter were taken up with her in the following exchange: "Q. So why did you care if the leases weren't executed properly? A. Because I don't believe in criminal behaviour, and that's exactly what it was, plus the fact they were commercial leases, it's a not‑for‑profit organisation, it was illegally signed, it was illegally dated, and they are not supposed to be living off profits." Q. Mrs Collier, a lease that's not completed properly is not a criminal act. A. It is if it's signed by the wrong people, and one person signs it as a landlord, when, in fact, Mrs Bell wasn't the landlord. The landlord is the state office of the CWA."
2. There were two leases in evidence which were the subject of the plaintiff's investigation. The first was expressed to be between "Country Women's Association of New South Wales (Wellington Branch)" and Wellington Multi-Service Centre Inc for a term of two years commencing on 1 January 2014 and ending on 31 December 2016. It was dated 29 January 2014 and signed by Mrs Bell, who was then president of the Wellington branch and witnessed by Joanne Doherty. The second was expressed to be between "Country Women's Association of New South Wales (Wellington Branch)" and Wellington Show Society Inc for a term of three years commencing on 1 July 2013 and ending on 30 June 2016. It was dated 9 August 2013 and signed by Mrs Bell, who was then president of the Wellington branch and witnessed by Ms Beverley Cameron.
3. The plaintiff appeared to believe that a lease which bears a date after the commencement date is invalid, or otherwise irregular and that, accordingly, the reference to the Wellington branch in the description of the lessor was erroneous. The first point is incorrect as a matter of law. It is not unusual for a lease to bear a date after the date of its commencement. The second matter was also of no consequence. Although CWA (NSW) was the legal owner of the land, the Wellington branch was its custodian, as was explained by Mrs Tanya Cameron in her evidence. Its inclusion in the description of the lessor did not affect the identity of the owner of the land, which was CWA (NSW). The plaintiff also alleged that the execution of the leases breached s 6 of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales Incorporation Act, which makes provision for the management of general business of the CWA as a corporation. This allegation has not been made out.

Concerns raised with Mrs Blatch about the plaintiff

1. On about 15 February 2015 Mrs Wynne called Mrs Blatch to complain about the plaintiff's behaviour in branch meetings, and in particular that she interrupted people and spoke over the top of them. Mrs Blatch assured her that she would speak to the President (Mrs Carolan). In the days leading up to 18 February 2015 Mrs Blatch had a number of conversations with Mrs Carolan about the plaintiff. In one of these conversations, Mrs Carolan told Mrs Blatch that she would speak to the State President, Mrs Tanya Cameron, to work out what to do.

The referral of the plaintiff by Mrs Carolan to Ms Cargill

1. At 8.32am on 16 February 2015 Mrs Carolan sent an email to Ms Cargill and Barbara O'Brien (a representative from the Macquarie Group) about the Wellington branch. She informed Ms Cargill that she had arranged a "conflict resolution meeting" for 11 March 2015 and that she would look over the books prior to the meeting. Mrs Carolan asked if she could speak with Ms Cargill and Mrs O'Brien to discuss whether could come to the meeting to help her to control the plaintiff. Mrs Carolan also asked Ms Cargill if she would chair the meeting as a State Vice President.

The plaintiff's pre-occupation with seniority

1. At 8.25am on 17 February 2015, the plaintiff sent an email to Ms Beverley Cameron in which she said, in part: "As I am also in charge of the keys to the building, could you please explain to me, why you said you found Helen in the building and got her keys back off her. However, she rang me yesterday, giving her version of the Steve King actions for January 2015, she told me she still has a set of keys, as she is the senior VP and will be in charge in your absence. Actually, she was wrongly written down as the first person for the position of VP for 2015, Joan Snelson had already been a VP before her and also Joan has been President of the branch twice, which Helen has not. Although Helen has been Secretary, Joan has been Treasurer and if I am not mistaken, also Secretary at one stage, I think that makes her senior, given that she has also held a position at State, which Helen has not done."
2. When she put the scenario set out in the email about access to keys to Ms Cargill in cross-examination, the following exchange occurred: "Q. So the point I'm saying to you is, if Ms Snelson has been vice president at Wellington since I went to Wellington in 2011, and Mrs Norris had only been since, I think, 2013, then who would be the senior VP in the group? A. There is no such thing as a senior VP. Q. Well, I mean, who would be classed as‑‑ A. There is no such thing as a senior VP. Q. Okay. So if Ms - so therefore, Mrs Norris sending me an email in January 2015, saying she's the senior VP, is not correct? A. No, because there is no such thing as a senior VP."

The Facts Day on 18 February 2015

1. On about 17 February 2015 Mrs Carolan left a message for Mrs Tanya Cameron, saying that she wanted to discuss issues relating to the plaintiff as she had received a number of complaints from members of the Wellington branch concerning the plaintiff.

Communications between Mrs Tanya Cameron and Mrs Carolan

1. On 18 February 2015 the Macquarie Group held a Facts Day at Wongarbon. The Wongarbon branch was part of the Macquarie Group. The plaintiff referred to the occasion in her evidence as "the illegal Facts Day" as she contended that only the State Executive of the CWA could hold a Facts Day. There is nothing in the evidence to support this contention which was put to Mrs Tanya Cameron in cross-examination and rejected.
2. In the period leading up to the Facts Day Mrs Carolan became concerned about how to deal with the plaintiff as she understood that the plaintiff was known to be disruptive. She phoned Mrs Tanya Cameron and left a message asking her to ring back to discuss how the CWA should deal with the plaintiff.
3. When Mrs Carolan opened the Facts Day she told the assembled company that she had to leave her telephone on because she was expecting a call from Mrs Tanya Cameron. Mrs Tanya Cameron telephoned Mrs Carolan in the course of the Facts Day, which led Mrs Carolan to leave the Wongarbon Hall to take the call. Mrs Carolan told her that she needed help to work out what to do about the plaintiff as some of the local members had complained about the way she had recorded the minutes, that she constantly interrupted people during meetings and that she was making allegations about the Wellington branch. Mrs Tanya Cameron advised Mrs Carolan to speak to the plaintiff directly, to allow her to have a support person present and to explain to the plaintiff that she had to cease her duties as branch secretary while the complaints were being investigated. Mrs Tanya Cameron also referred to Mrs Carolan's obligation, as Group President, to follow the Grievance Handling Procedure and reg 15 of the CWA Constitution.

The in camera meeting on 18 February 2015

1. After having received this advice, Mrs Carolan returned to the Wongarbon Hall and asked members to leave so that an in camera special meeting could be held in a room off the hall. She apologised for disrupting the Facts Day but said that an issue had arisen with the Wellington branch that needed to be dealt with. Mrs Blatch, who was still the secretary of the Macquarie Group, attended the meeting and took notes. Mrs Carolan also asked Barbara Barrett, who was the treasurer of the Macquarie Group, to attend.
2. Mrs Jones, who was also present at the Facts Day, was also invited to attend the meeting. Mrs Jones' understanding, which appears to have been shared by the plaintiff and was noted in the notes Mrs Blatch made at the meeting, was that she was asked to attend as a witness. Mrs Carolan believed Mrs Jones to be a support person for the plaintiff. I am satisfied, on the basis of Mrs Jones' evidence, that Mrs Carolan was under a misapprehension in that respect. Because Mrs Jones understood her role to be a witness for the meeting, she made notes of what occurred at the meeting. Although her notes were not in evidence, Mrs Jones had a good recollection of what occurred at the meeting, which corroborated Mrs Carolan's evidence (apart from the misunderstanding about her role), as did the notes and evidence of Mrs Blatch.
3. In the course of the meeting, Mrs Carolan raised with the plaintiff that members of the Wellington branch had made complaints about the way she was conducting her duties as branch secretary and in particular her inclusion of inappropriate comments in the minutes and the number of emails she sent querying the accounts. Mrs Carolan also referred to the plaintiff's complaints about the branch treasurer and her argument with the branch president on 11 February 2015. The plaintiff tried to speak over Mrs Carolan but was told to be quiet and listen. Mrs Carolan asked the plaintiff to stand down from her duties until the issues could be discussed at the next branch meeting on 11 March 2015. Mrs Carolan also asked the plaintiff whether she understood. When the plaintiff did not respond, Mrs Carolan repeated the question. Eventually, Mrs Jones told the plaintiff that she needed to acknowledge what she had been told. The plaintiff then said, "Fine, I understand." Mrs Carolan then closed the special meeting.
4. Mrs Carolan's evidence was corroborated by Mrs Jones' evidence. Mrs Jones recalled that it was put to the plaintiff at the in camera meeting on 18 February 2015 that she had spoken over people at branch meetings while they were trying to give their reports. Mrs Jones was herself a member of the Wellington branch and had observed occasions on which the plaintiff had spoken over others at meetings at the Wellington branch, including at the meeting on 11 November 2014. Mrs Jones also recalled that at the meeting on 18 February 2015 the plaintiff had tried to talk over Mrs Carolan. Mrs Jones also recalled that it was put to the plaintiff on 18 February 2015 that she had had an argument with Ms Beverley Cameron at the meeting on 11 February 2015. Mrs Jones' impression was that the meeting on 18 February 2015 had been conducted by the CWA executive in a "very professional", "businesslike" way.
5. I accept the plaintiff's admission in her documentary record (from which she read at the meeting on 3 August 2015, referred to below) that she said to Ms Beverley Cameron on 18 February 2015: "No the blame is all yours, you were a hopeless Secretary and you are a hopeless President and Treasurer, congratulations you have a 100% failure rate."
6. The plaintiff understood that on 18 February 2015 the Wellington branch had been asked to cease engaging in operations until the meeting of 18 March 2015. Apparently the locks to the premises were changed and tenants were required to be issued with new keys.
7. I do not accept the evidence of the plaintiff or Mr Collier that the plaintiff returned the keys to the CWA post box to Ms Beverley Cameron on 18 February 2015 since it appears that she still had access to mail addressed to that PO Box subsequently (see further below).

Review of books of Wellington branch on 19 February 2015

1. On about 19 February 2015 Mrs Carolan and Mrs Blatch went through the books and records of the Wellington branch to investigate the complaints made by the plaintiff. They found minor errors, such as typographical errors in the minutes or small discrepancies in balancing petty cash, but could not find anything of substance.
2. On 20 February 2015 Mrs Carolan sent an email to Mrs Tanya Cameron to report on her findings regarding the Wellington branch. She included the following passage in her email: "My overall view is that problems have been brewing for many months in the Wellington branch. I feel that one of the underlying problems may be the dispute between the President and Secretary concerning the possible installation of an additional toilet in their CWA rooms as requested/suggested by the Bridge Club who hire the rooms on a weekly basis. Please see attached copies of minutes and correspondence relating to this."

The plaintiff's complaint against Mrs Carolan

1. On 20 February 2015 at 1.17pm the plaintiff sent an email to Mrs Wilkins which attached a letter of complaint against Mrs Carolan. The 3-page letter is detailed and closely typed. It contained the following passage: "I have been virtually charged with an offence, because I brought discrepancies of the Branch to the attention of the Group President and when she would not do anything to State. I was blamed for everything and am being made to look the guilty party in the District."
2. The letter of complaint concluded: "It is quite clear to the Community, I am to blame and the President that I complained about, who disrupted the last Branch meeting at Wellington is "home and hose" [sic] and arriving at my home each day claiming something or another, please ask her to desist."
3. The result of the plaintiff's letter of complaint against Mrs Carolan was that Mrs Carolan was asked not to take any further part in the investigation into the plaintiff. However, by the time the complaint was made, Mrs Carolan had already sent all the documents she had collected from the Wellington branch to the CWA (NSW) head office.
4. The plaintiff's complaint about Mrs Carolan was referred to Mrs Tanya Cameron whose duties as State President included the investigation of complaints against any group office bearer. Mrs Tanya Cameron, who was aware that the plaintiff's complaint about Mrs Carolan arose from her handling of the Wongarbon Facts Day, decided not to accept a formal complaint against Mrs Carolan until all of the other complaints concerning the plaintiff had been investigated.
5. By email sent at about 3.30pm on 27 February 2015 Mrs Tanya Cameron responded to the plaintiff's letter of complaint about Mrs Carolan. Mrs Tanya Cameron referred to the record of the meeting of 18 February 2015 in which it was recorded that the plaintiff agreed to cease communications about the matter until it had been investigated. Mrs Tanya Cameron informed her of her decision referred to above not to accept a complaint about Mrs Carolan until the investigation of the other issues was complete. The letter said: "You must allow sufficient time for us to receive the information and carry out a thorough investigation, so that we can establish if the records are in order or not."
6. The letter concluded: "Can you please confirm, by return email, that you agree to maintain confidentiality on these issues."
7. The plaintiff accepted that this request did not amount to a request that she sign a confidentiality clause in an agreement. She gave evidence that she did not believe Mrs Tanya Cameron would carry out a thorough investigation and considered that Mrs Tanya Cameron was "either lying or being lied to". The plaintiff also gave evidence that she did not believe that the CWA "ever really investigated anything".
8. By email sent on 27 February 2015 at 4.58pm the plaintiff wrote to Mrs Tanya Cameron about what had occurred on 18 February 2015. In addition to a litany of complaints and assurances the plaintiff said: "It is quite obvious that Mrs Carolan has decided to use me as the scape goat and when I tried to contact her for help, I was told in writing, she would neither take phone calls or emails, that most definately [sic] falls within the category of how not to behave."
9. The plaintiff forwarded her complaint against Mrs Carolan to Ms Wilkins at 1.17pm on 20 February 2015.

The involvement of Ms Cargill

1. After the plaintiff had complained about Mrs Carolan, Mrs Tanya Cameron asked Ms Cargill to step in and take over the investigation of the affairs of the Wellington branch. As part of her role, Ms Cargill examined the books and records of the Wellington branch. She examined the various grants which the branch had received from 2011 and calculated how much of the grant from the Department of Social Services had been spent and how much remained. Her analysis of the financial documents was detailed. She noted, for example, that although the funds for Mrs Wynne's membership had been receipted on 20 October 2014, the amount had not yet been deposited into the branch's bank account.
2. The plaintiff put to Ms Cargill that she had made a list of things which the branch needed to fix because of what they had done wrong, to which Ms Cargill responded: "I didn't say they hadn't done anything wrong; I said they hadn't done anything fraudulent. There were things that they weren't doing as well as they could be, which happens a lot."
3. Ms Cargill also redrafted the minutes for the branch meeting on 11 February 2015 to remove the offensive paragraphs. She provided them to the Wellington branch and told them that they would need to go through them and make any alterations and corrections. There is no evidence that the minutes of 11 February 2015 (whether those prepared by the plaintiff as secretary or those based on the further draft prepared by Ms Cargill) were ever passed as a correct record. Ms Chrysanthou confirmed that no record had been located which established that they had been passed.
4. I note that the plaintiff, during the course of the hearing and in her written submissions which were provided in accordance with my directions after the hearing had concluded, alleged that Ms Cargill was guilty of an offence under s 251 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for inducing acceptance of a false document because she had altered the minutes. Section 251 has no application to the conduct of Ms Cargill. At all times it was plain why Ms Cargill was redrafting the minutes (to remove inappropriate material included by the plaintiff as branch secretary). She provided the redrafted minutes to the new executive officers of the Wellington branch in order for the branch to consider whether the redrafted minutes represented a correct record of what had occurred. Ms Cargill herself was not present at the meeting on 11 February 2015 and did not purport to do other than edit the minutes prepared by the plaintiff.

Inquiries made by Mrs Tanya Cameron relating to the grant to the Wellington branch

1. After she had received the plaintiff's complaint against Mrs Carolan, Mrs Tanya Cameron telephoned the Department of Social Services to find out the proper processes to be followed by a local branch in acquitting the grant. She was informed by a departmental officer that once the grant had been issued and paid, there were no further records which needed to be lodged with the Department. This information accorded with the Departmental records which indicated that no acquittal was required.

Concern about the plaintiff's mental health

1. In early March 2015 Mrs Blatch and Ms Cargill discussed the plaintiff's mental health, which they believed might account for her behaviour. They decided to propose a meeting with the plaintiff and her husband to find out whether she was all right. The plaintiff cross-examined Ms Cargill about her concerns, which were ultimately the subject of a statement made by Ms Cargill to the meeting on 3 August 2015 (see below).
2. Ms Cargill explained the reason for suggesting a meeting with the plaintiff and Mr Collier in her cross-examination as follows: "Marj [Blatch] and I both wanted to come and speak with you [the plaintiff] and your husband before the March meeting so we could find out and check whether you were okay. We were concerned about your health because we have both either had or had relations that have had mental health problems and your behaviour was similar to those."
3. On 4 March 2015 Marjorie Blatch rang the plaintiff, expressed concern about her state of mind and suggested that she and Mrs Carolan could meet with her to discuss it. The plaintiff insisted that there was nothing wrong with her and hung up. Following this conversation Mrs Blatch spoke to Mrs Carolan. They decided that the matter ought be passed to Mrs Tanya Cameron so that she could deal with it. Some time in the week commencing 4 March 2015 Ms Beverley Cameron rang Mrs Blatch and told her that she would resign as president of the Wellington branch if the plaintiff stayed on as secretary.
4. On 4 March 2015 the plaintiff sent an email to Mrs Tanya Cameron complaining about Mrs Blatch's phone call which she alleged in the email "could only be described as, bullying and defamatory". The plaintiff confirmed in the email: "I was told [by Mrs Blatch] that she was concerned for my mental health, as she believed I have a mental illness."
5. As a result of the plaintiff's complaint about Mrs Blatch, Mrs Blatch had no further contact with her until the Macquarie Group meeting on 3 August 2015 (see below). Mrs Tanya Cameron directed Ms Cargill not to speak to the plaintiff at all because she was concerned that, after the plaintiff's complaints against Mrs Carolan and Mrs Blatch, there would be no one independent who could chair the Wellington branch meeting on 11 March 2015.

The plaintiff's communications with Ms Cargill

1. On Monday 9 March 2015 at 10.49am the plaintiff emailed Ms Cargill whom she understood had been appointed by the CWA to conduct a thorough investigation into the Wellington branch. The plaintiff wrote, in part: "In entering all the incoming correspondence, I found an overdue notice from AGL, knowing that the last bill, was paid in November by me, after getting a cheque of [sic] Bev and not having seen a bill. On telephoning, I found out, that the bills were changed in November to go Bev's email address. . ." [Emphasis added.]
2. The plaintiff's evidence was that, although she had used the phrase "on telephoning", she had not initiated the call to AGL. Rather, AGL had called her as she was the contact person. I do not accept her evidence. I accept her admission in the email that she was the one who initiated the contact with AGL. The AGL bill which was overdue was addressed to the CWA at its post office box in Wellington. I infer that the plaintiff "found" the AGL bill in the CWA's letter box at some point prior to 9 March 2015, having failed to return the keys to the letterbox as she had been instructed to do on about 18 February 2015.
3. Further, in her cross-examination, the plaintiff made the unfounded allegation that Ms Beverley Cameron had intentionally not paid the AGL bill. She also included a gratuitous comment about Ms Cargill in cross-examination when she said that she "didn't have much faith" in Ms Cargill because they had been on the South Pacific Area Committee together and the plaintiff "knew what she was like".
4. Later that day, at 17.58pm, Ms Cargill responded in part as follows: "Dear Marion, Thank you for drawing . . . my attention to this. I understood you had been asked to stop your duties as secretary until after Wednesday's meeting so you should have let me know before you made any phone calls. . . . None of your branch office bearers will be acting in their normal positions during Wednesday's meeting. I am not expecting either Bev [Cameron] or yourself to do anything to prepare for the meeting. I will be preparing the agenda, dealing with the correspondence, and preparing the treasurer's report. . . ."
5. Shortly after she received Ms Cargill's email, the plaintiff responded by email and included some derogatory remarks about Mrs Norris. She also asked "May I ask what you mean by phone calls?", which I take to be a reference to the first paragraph of the email extracted above.
6. On 10 March 2015 at 7.01am Ms Cargill responded by confirming that the phone call to which she was referring was the one the plaintiff had apparently made to AGL and reminded her that she had been asked not to speak to anyone on behalf of the branch. Ms Cargill concluded the email by advising the plaintiff not to listen to rumours and assuring her that she was coming to try to help the Wellington branch "sort out issues that have been raised by you and other members of your branch."
7. The plaintiff was aware by about March 2015 that the CWA had a no-bullying policy. However she maintained in her evidence that even before she became aware of the policy she understood what bullying meant. She gave the following description in cross-examination: "Bullying would be like trying to force something upon somebody and then being ridiculed in some way and being tormenting to somebody and not allowing that person to do their job adequately."
8. In about March 2015 the plaintiff read the policy document. She saw that the policy included the following passages: "Bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a member, or group of members, that creates a risk to health and safety. Single incidents of unreasonable behaviour can also create a risk to health and safety. Branch/ Group Executive must take appropriate action to prevent members from being bullied. . . . What Types of Behaviour Could Be Bullying? Bullying behaviour can be obvious and aggressive, including: . . . - loud verbal criticism Bullying can also be subtle, including: . . . - intimidation by inappropriate personal comment, belittling opinions or unjustified criticism . . ."
9. At no point did the plaintiff accept that she had ever been the perpetrator, as opposed to the victim, of bullying behaviour. The evidence demonstrated several instances where the plaintiff engaged in repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a member or members of the CWA (including by making unjustified complaints), where she engaged in obvious and aggressive behaviour (such as when she spoke over and interrupted people at meetings) and where she had engaged in intimidation by inappropriate personal comment, belittling opinions or unjustified criticism (by repeatedly inserting into agendas, minutes and correspondence gratuitous and groundless criticism of the conduct and character of particular members of the CWA).

The meeting of the Wellington branch of the CWA on 11 March 2015

1. Ms Cargill prepared the agenda for the meeting of the Wellington branch on 11 March 2015 and, as authorised by Mrs Tanya Cameron and Mrs Carolan, she chaired the meeting. It was originally intended that Mrs Blatch attend the meeting of 11 March 2015 as a note-taker. However, because of the plaintiff's complaint about Mrs Blatch, Ms Cargill arranged for Janice Stanford to take notes.
2. At the beginning of the meeting Ms Cargill read from a prepared statement. Of present relevance she said: "Some of you may be wondering why I am here. There have been several communications from a number of people regarding issues in this branch. So I am here today to help you, as a branch, resolve the current issues and move forward so you can continue the good work CWA is known for in your community. Many of the issues already raised have been investigated, there are no major issues, although there are some things that need to be addressed, and I would like to help you as a branch to clear up before we finish today, however I'd like to leave these for later. First I wanted to provide each of you with the opportunity to air any issues you believe exist in the branch, be they be about the running [of] meetings, the way branch members interact with each other, how you are treated by other branch members, the way decisions are made, whatever you think needs to be raised but you don't feel like anyone else will listen to you. . . . Possible ways forwards I have a list of things that have come out of the investigations I have done, following complaints that have been made by some members of the branch, some of these have been raised. • Firstly I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion of impropriety by any member of the branch with regards to anything financial. • There are some things where mistakes were made or things were overlooked - which can happen especially when you hand over roles from one person to another."
3. I accept Ms Cargill's evidence that the words to the following effect were said by those indicated at the meeting: Mrs Wynne: "I am a relatively new member of the CWA. I am concerned that some Wellington members are complaining about things discussed in the Branch Meetings all over town. I also do not like what has been happening in meetings in that one member might start speaking and another member talks over the top of them." Miss Snelson: "I have been a member of the CWA for over 50 years. I am concerned that there has been Wellington correspondence that has been sent out without permission. All outgoing correspondence should be discussed in meetings." The plaintiff: "I believe that I have been doing a good job as Branch Secretary since it was thrust upon me. I have been undermined by my President and others and have never done anything without permission. I have been trying to straighten up the paper work. You are treated differently by the CWA if you don't do what the President wants. I have also been bullied by new members in emails. I feel insulted and humiliated." Ms Bev Cameron: "It is not bullying to have a difference in opinion. I feel that recent issues raised to the State Office about the emergency grant was underhanded." Joyce Morris: "I am disappointed with what has been happening recently. These things should have been resolved in the branch and not involve outsiders. Everyone should be very courteous and respectful. There are some members doing and saying things behind the back of other members, outside of meetings."
4. At the conclusion of the meeting a resolution was passed that all Wellington branch office bearer positions be vacated and new elections held. The plaintiff was the only person who voted against the resolution. Mrs Norris was elected President; Ms Beverley Cameron was elected Secretary; Mrs Wynne was elected Treasurer; and Miss Snelson was elected as branch Vice President. Ms Cargill and Mrs Stanford prepared minutes of the meeting. These minutes were adopted by the Wellington branch at its next meeting on 13 May 2015.

The plaintiff's communications with Mrs Tanya Cameron

1. On 12 March 2015 at 5.52am the plaintiff emailed Mrs Tanya Cameron to complain about the branch meeting of 11 March 2015. In her email she said in part: "I am forwarding this to you, as I have been most definitely lied to and very poorly treated yesterday by Ruth Cargill. Notwithstanding but including the breaching of CWA Rules and Regulations. . . . I informed the State office last Friday, that it would not be appropriate to have Ruth Cargill chair the meeting, since she is within Macquarie Group, I also note that a member of Macquarie Group, was taking minutes. . . . The minutes provided, the ending does not look to [sic] good for the illegal President and Secretary, the true President and Vice President, Bev Cameron and Helen Norris, so Ruth has decided they are to be altered at the April meeting. . . . Helen Norris, as you can see has believed for some time that she runs the CWA and has never been of assistance to me or any person that does not benefit Helen Norris. . . . Kathie Carolan, for instance has a bone to pick with me, she was humiliated by what occurred at the 2014 March Council meeting, she intentionally lied and yes I mean lied to me, at the most disgusting of all times, when a death in the family had occurred, solely because she did not want me as Social Secretary, well as you can see, I did comply with the Rules and I did not get Social Secretary, as Mrs. Helen Nalder informed me, that she would not have nominated for the Social Secretary position if she was aware of the contents of the letter. . . . The meeting was informed, that there had been no accusations in the Treasurer's Report and no person had been defamed, I would like to know where she got her Law degree from, other than to do what Kathie Carolan wants her to do." [Emphasis added to indicate the passages particularly relied upon by the defendant.]

Ms Cargill's continuing role

1. From 12 to 15 March 2015 Ms Cargill was made aware by Margaret Frankham from the Gollan branch and Past State President Elaine Armstrong that the plaintiff had been ringing members of the CWA, both within and outside the Macquarie Group. On 15 March 2015 Ms Cargill prepared a list of matters to be followed up and wrote to Mrs Norris, Mrs Wynne and Ms Beverley Cameron with suggestions as to what they might do to counter the problems within the branch and the plaintiff's ongoing complaints and restore the reputation of the Wellington branch of the CWA within the local community.

The plaintiff's communications with the Minister for Social Services about the grant to the CWA

1. At 5.57am on 12 March 2015 the plaintiff emailed the Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Scott Morrison. Her email commenced: "I wish to bring to your attention, the below and the fact that the application for the Emergency Relief was fraudulent."
2. She made various allegations about the operations of the Wellington branch and continued: "I do hope your department will look into this, as virtually nothing of what was claimed to be purchased, has been purchased. The 2 woman [sic] who applied for this grant, Mrs Pat Bell and Ms Beverley Cameron and the present Branch President, Mrs Helen Norris, believe they have done nothing wrong and to quote, have stated, "It's there [sic] fault for giving us the money, they should have checked our application out properly." [Emphasis in original.]
3. On 28 April 2015 the Department of Social Services responded, on behalf of the Minister, to the plaintiff's email. It confirmed that funding of $4,105 was paid to the Wellington branch on 23 September 2013 and said that it had been a Volunteer Grant, not an Emergency Relief Grant, as previously advised. It said: "A Volunteer Grant is able to be used for the purchase of small equipment items, contributions towards the reimbursement of fuel costs for volunteers, transport costs incurred by volunteers with disability who are unable to drive, and the cost of training courses and background screening checks for volunteers."
4. The Department informed the plaintiff in the letter that it would look into the issues she had raised. The plaintiff engaged in further communications with the Department in October 2015 (see below).

Communications between the plaintiff and Mrs Norris

1. On 30 April 2015 or 1 May 2015, Mrs Norris visited the plaintiff at home and brought a pot plant and some chocolates which Mrs Norris described as a "peace offering". Notwithstanding Mrs Norris's approach, the plaintiff did not attend the meeting of the Wellington branch on 13 May 2015.

The meeting of the Wellington branch on 13 May 2015

1. At the meeting of the Wellington branch on 13 May 2015 the minutes of the branch meeting which took place on 11 March 2015 were passed as a true and correct record of the meeting. The branch meeting was the first time the branch had met since the new office bearers had been elected on 11 March 2015. The plaintiff submitted that she was denied access to these minutes. Even assuming that she was not provided with these minutes in draft or final form, this could only amount to an immaterial irregularity rather than anything that would entitle her to relief.
2. Notwithstanding the adoption of the minutes of 11 March 2015 on 13 May 2015, in August 2015 the plaintiff wrote to Mrs Stanford and asked for a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Wellington branch on 11 March 2015. Ms Stanford responded in part as follows: "I took notes of the meeting for Miss Cargill and after the meeting draft minutes notes of that meeting were destroyed/deleted having been passed on to Miss Cargill. I can only then speculate as to what happened to the Draft Minutes. I would assume the draft would have been passed to Wellington Branch Executive for their perusal. Then, I assume the draft circulated to Branch Members for them to look over and check before coming before a Branch Meeting and alterations/additions made in the appropriate manner before being passed by members present at that meeting again in the appropriate manner and then finally becoming The Minutes of the March Meeting of the Wellington Branch of the CWA of NSW."
3. It is plain from the evidence that Mrs Stanford's speculation was correct in that, as referred to above, the minutes of the 11 March 2015 meeting were passed at the meeting on 13 May 2015.

Events after the branch meeting of 13 May 2015

1. On 23 May 2015 the draft minutes of the meeting on 13 May 2013 were sent to Ms Cargill, who still had a role overseeing the Wellington branch. The plaintiff also received a copy of the draft minutes, which indicated (incorrectly) that she had been paid $102 as follows. "Accounts for payment . . . 5 Reimbursement to Marion Collier for $102 for petty cash . . . Moved by Anne Jones and seconded by Hazel Bishop."
2. On 27 May 2015 at 14.33pm the plaintiff emailed Ms Louisa Deacon, the Membership Manager, of CWA (NSW). The title of the email was "Fraud and Bullying". It commenced: "I am attaching the May minutes as sent to me, which I find most likely amounts to fraud, given that item 5 on page 2 is not relevant. I have not requested $102 and am not owed $102."
3. After making several complaints about branch members, she concluded: "I expect you will address this at your earliest convenience and not like previously simply ignore it, as I am prepared to take it to the NSW Police, as I have never sought reimbursement and the minutes have to be kept, since it is a treasurer's report, it is liable for auditing."
4. Ms Deacon emailed Mrs Norris, Mrs Wynne, Ms Beverley Cameron (the then current Wellington branch office bearers), Ms Cargill, Mrs Carolan and Mrs Tanya Cameron about the latest communication from the plaintiff. Ms Cargill responded to the Wellington officer bearers and advised them that the branch only owed the plaintiff 20c and that the sum of $100 was the relevant petty cash amount. She advised them to correct the problem as follows: "Given that your last minutes recorded that she was being paid $102, you should deal with this as business arising at your next meeting, and arrange for Marion to be paid the 20 cents from the current petty cash."
5. On 2 June 2015 the plaintiff rang Mrs Carolan. They had a conversation which went for over an hour and a half. In the course of the conversation words to the following effect were said: Plaintiff: "Kathie, I have serious heart problems and the issue with the Wellington branch is causing me to stress. I have not had any support from my branch members to investigate the grant." Ms Carolan: "Marion, Wellington received the grant in 2013. I do not understand why the issue about this grant is being raised now in October 2015 [sic, 2014, when the plaintiff became secretary] when it is difficult to accurately account for where the grant has been spent." Plaintiff: "No one in the branch is supporting me when all the trouble arose. All that Macquarie Group executive did was call for new elections. Mrs Carolan: "Marion, I thought I was - although I was not present at the time, I understand that it was members decision for all of the branch office bearer positions to be vacated and new elections held". Plaintiff "The only one to show support and understanding was Joan Yeo. No one in the branch has asked me about the problems, and I do not attend meetings anymore as I'm belittled and told to be quiet. I've had a lot of stress and get migraines because of this, and I can't believe the branch president, Helen Norris, came to bring flowers and chocolates as a hand of friendship. And Helen told me that you want me out, and Marjory Blatch said I have a mental problem". Mrs Carolan: "Marion take down the dates and times of these conversations and forward them to us". Plaintiff: "This will be a strange one then."
6. On 3 June 2015 the plaintiff wrote to Mrs Norris pointing out errors in the minutes for the May branch meeting, including that she was not mentioned as an apology. She referred item 3 which read: "Accounts for payment . . . 5 Reimbursement to Marion Collier for $102 for petty cash . . . Moved by Anne Jones and seconded by Hazel Bishop."
7. Of this item the plaintiff wrote: "3 sets of eyes were privy to the claim that I was making a false claim against the Branch for the sum of $102, plus 2 sets of eyes in the persons moving and seconding, 1 of which had already left the meeting, but still moved 3 times."
8. On 3 June 2015 the plaintiff rang Robin Godwin who was the Macquarie Group Agriculture and Environment officer. She raised the issue of the probity of the grant and also catalogued various grievances against members of her own branch and group office bearers, including Mrs Carolan and Mrs Blatch, as well as Ms Cargill. Mrs Godwin, who was unaware of the background, sent an email to Ms Cargill, in which she reported on the conversation and said that her impression was that the plaintiff was seeking to gain support for a motion to be put at the next group meeting regarding the federal grant. Mrs Godwin wrote: "It seems likely Marion will contact other group office bearers and councillors to attempt to garner support for her position. She seems determined that the Wellington branch should repay the grant funds and that the branch office bearers and group officials are all in the wrong."
9. There was a meeting of the Wellington branch on 10 June 2015, which the plaintiff did not attend as she was indisposed. She sent a letter of apology dated 4 June 2015.
10. On 17 June 2015 the plaintiff rang Mrs Carolan again and raised an issue with the minutes of the June 2015 meeting. Mrs Carolan told her that such an issue ought be resolved at branch level. Mrs Carolan also said that the branch was trying to resolve issues that had been raised but that matters had not yet been resolved. She assured the plaintiff that there was nothing malicious in the course taken by the branch.
11. Some time after 17 June 2015 Mrs Norris responded to the plaintiff's email of 3 June 2015. She expressed her appreciation to the plaintiff for reading the minutes so thoroughly and assured her that the error in the petty cash amount would be rectified. Mrs Norris also wrote: "I would have appreciated it if you had brought these matters to my attention without going to Head Office without my knowledge. Branch matters should be brought to the branch, and if the branch cannot handle it, then go to Group, and only in an emergency should matters be referred to State."
12. There was a further meeting of the Wellington branch on 8 July 2015 which the plaintiff did not attend.
13. On 19 July 2015 the plaintiff sent a letter of complaint to Mrs Carolan, alleging bullying by the Wellington branch and that her removal from the position of secretary of the Wellington branch was illegal. She said: "I am fully prepared to provide to the [Group] Council meeting on the 3rd August 2015, proof of incorrect procedures and breaches of Rules, which, some of which in writing was brought to the branches [sic] attention and totally ignored at their June meeting."
14. A copy of this letter was provided to Ms Cargill.

The meeting of the Macquarie Group Council meeting on 3 August 2015

1. The Macquarie Group Council meeting was held on 3 August 2015. It was attended by the plaintiff, Mrs Tanya Cameron (who attended to support Mrs Carolan and Ms Cargill), Ms Cargill, Mrs Blatch and voting members. Initially the meeting was chaired by Mrs Carolan to deal with general agenda items. However, when it came time to deal with the plaintiff's letter of 19 July 2015, Mrs Ruth Shanks, who was a former State President of the CWA, took the chair. At the beginning of that part of the meeting, the plaintiff's letter of 19 July 2015 was read out.
2. The plaintiff had prepared a document and made copies of it. She started to read it out and gave copies of it to "the various branches". She also gave a copy to Mrs Blatch.

The plaintiff's attribution of blame to Ms Beverley Cameron

1. At page 8 of the document from which she read, the plaintiff stated that she had made a written record of what had occurred for the three weeks from 18 February 2015. In respect of 18 February 2015, she recorded that on that day she had said to Ms Beverley Cameron: "No the blame is all yours, you were a hopeless Secretary and you are a hopeless President and Treasurer, congratulations you have a 100% failure rate."
2. When it was put to the plaintiff that she had said to Ms Beverley Cameron what she had put in her own record, the plaintiff would not accept the proposition and contended that she was simply recording what Ms Beverley Cameron was saying to others that the plaintiff had said. Ms Chrysanthou reminded the plaintiff that she had also included this passage in her response to the letter of 12 March 2016, which she had sent on 29 March 2016. The extract was introduced by the words, "The following were itemised as they occurred". The plaintiff adhered to her former response: namely, she denied that she had ever said those words to Ms Cameron and insisted that Ms Beverley Cameron was putting it around that the plaintiff had said those words when she had not.
3. I reject the plaintiff's evidence, which provided one of many examples of her refusing to accept the construction of a document of which she was the author when she appreciated that it was not in her interests to do so.

The plaintiff's statements relating to the grant

1. At the meeting of 3 August 2015, the plaintiff included on the first page of the document referred to above: "I noted, no information existed on a Emergency Relief Grant, received from the Federal Government on the 23rd September 2013, this grant was not the State as claimed by Mrs Bell and Ms Cameron, rather a Federal Government Emergency Relief Grant."
2. It was put to the plaintiff that she appreciated by 3 August 2015 that the grant was a Volunteer Grant, not an Emergency Relief Grant. She rejected that proposition, although it is plain from the letter dated 28 April 2015 which she received from the Department of Social Services (extracted above) that from that date she appreciated the true character of the grant and understood that the earlier reference to the grant having been for emergency relief was erroneous.

Ms Cargill's contribution to the meeting on 3 August 2015

1. Ms Cargill reported to those present at the meeting about what had been done in the preceding six months to try to address the concerns raised by the plaintiff and other members of the Wellington branch. She read from notes which she had prepared. Her allotted time ran out before she had finished reading from her notes. In the time available she outlined what had followed from the meeting on 11 February 2015; the concerns expressed about the plaintiff's mental health in early March 2015 and the plaintiff's response to those concerns; what had occurred at the 11 March 2015 meeting, at which members voiced their concerns and then voted for all branch positions which had been declared vacant.
2. Ms Cargill said as follows with regards the plaintiff's mental health: "Marion's mental health [this heading was for Ms Cargill's benefit and was not read out] In the early part of March I had several conversations with Marj [Blatch] about ways forward. One of the things we discussed was the erratic and manic nature of much of Marion's communication. We were both of the opinion that if she were my best friend I would be suggesting that she see her doctor. Eventually we decided that Marj would ring Marion and show our concern for her and arrange for us both to meet with Marion before the branch meeting I was to chair on 11 March. Marj rang Marion on 4 March and expressed our concerns about Marion's mental health (this was following the mental health talk we had at the March council meeting). We were concerned about the branch and we did want to try to gently suggest to Marion that maybe she could consider standing down as secretary. This discussion followed three weeks of erratic emails, escalating complaints, numerous phone calls to the State President, Executive Officer at head office, the group president and group secretary. An ongoing process by the group president, secretary and treasurer and myself analysing emails, meeting minutes and CWA accounts to determine if there were any issues that needed to be resolved. All of this Mrs Collier has interpreted in her letter as 'when I complained, an Executive of this Group, simply telephoned me to inform me that I had a mental illness and had to step down for the benefit of Wellington'. I would love to get back the 30+ hours I spent on these investigations back in February and March."
3. Ms Cargill reported on the federal government grant as follows: "Marion has concern over a grant that the branch was given in September 2013. The branch met in October 2013 to discuss what they would purchase with the grant money and they started to buy some the things. Circumstances changed and some of the things were no longer needed and so were not bought but the branch had trouble coming to a consensus on what to spend it on. The govt dept that gave the grant did not require any evidence of the acquittal of the grant. The grant should have been spent by December 2014. It wasn't spent by then but there was no indication that the branch did not intend to spend it. Buying the rest of the things they needed was one of the things the branch was required to follow up on after the March meeting. The branch have purchased the other things they needed and have returned the remainder of the grant to the granting authority, even though this wasn't required."
4. I accept this summary of the grant as being accurate and consistent with the evidence.
5. Mrs Tanya Cameron and Ms Cargill both informed those present at the meeting that the plaintiff's complaints regarding the Wellington branch had been investigated and no evidence had been found to support them.

The passage of resolutions

1. At some point in the meeting, the members of the Wellington branch, including the plaintiff, were asked to leave the meeting so that there could be a discussion about the appropriate course in their absence. Mrs Tanya Cameron, Mrs Carolan, Mrs Blatch and Ms Cargill also left the meeting at this time. Mrs Blatch prepared minutes for the meeting, which did not cover the period during which she was absent from the meeting as referred to above.
2. The following resolutions were passed by the Macquarie Group Council in the absence of those persons referred to above: 1. "that a mediator independent of the CWA be sought to act between the group executive and all members of Wellington Branch to resolve issues of concern raised by Mrs Collier". 2. "that a CWA mentor be appointed to assist Wellington Branch to improve meeting procedures and the general running of the branch"; and 3. "that funding for expenses be offered for such a person".

Events after the Group Council meeting of 3 August 2015

Enquiries about Community Justice Centres providing a potential mediator

1. Following the meeting Mrs Blatch rang the Community Justice Centres (which were within the Department of Attorney General and Justice) to ask about mediation. She spoke with a woman by the name of Carmen. When Mrs Blatch told her that the dispute was within one of the branches of the CWA and also involved the Macquarie Group Executive, Carmen told her that the Community Justice Centres could not assist as it generally dealt with "disputes between neighbours like a fence dispute". Carmen sent an email to Mrs Blatch setting out the disputes which could be dealt with by Community Justice Centres and noting that its services were provided free-of-charge.

The consideration of Karen Saunders as a potential mediator

1. Following this call, Mrs Blatch reported to Ms Cargill. After considering various alternatives, they visited Mrs Shanks to discuss them further. In the course of this discussion Ms Cargill suggested enquiring whether Karen Saunders from Natalie Bramble Management would be prepared to act as mediator. Ms Cargill considered that Ms Saunders would be particularly suitable as she had run workshops of conflict resolution and negotiation for the CWA and had some understanding of the CWA structure as she had helped with its Strategic Planning Workshop. Ultimately it was Mrs Shanks who decided that Ms Saunders would be a suitable mediator, if she was prepared to take on the role.
2. On 3 August 2015 Ms Cargill emailed Ms Saunders to ask if she would be prepared to mediate the dispute. On 4 August 2015 Ms Saunders responded saying that she would be prepared to act as mediator and proposed a rate for her services. Ms Cargill consulted Mrs Tanya Cameron by email to seek her opinion on Ms Saunders' appointment. They agreed to check with Ms Saunders that she did not feel that there was potential for bias if she knew any of the individuals personally. To that end, Ms Cargill sent an email to Ms Saunders on 5 August 2015 in which she listed the names of those concerned to make sure that Ms Saunders did not know any of the individuals personally. On 10 August 2015 Ms Cargill sent a summary of the issues (which included a chronology) to Ms Saunders.
3. Between 10 and 26 August 2015 the CWA engaged Ms Saunders to consider Ms Cargill's summary dated 10 August 2015; speak to key participants on the phone; and decide on a mediation based on the information that had been provided.

Contact between Ms Saunders and the mediator

1. On 14 August 2015 Ms Saunders rang the plaintiff, whom she had not previously met. During the conversation, which lasted at least 45 minutes, Ms Saunders asked the plaintiff to keep the conversation confidential and asked her not to speak to other people about the issues until the mediation.
2. On 15 August 2015 the plaintiff sent an email, entitled "Deceit" to Mrs Shanks, which included the following passage: "I have continually been accused of defaming people but no person will tell me how, yet this women [sic, a reference to Ms Saunders] has committed fraud to obtain private sensitive information about an organisation, that she is not a member of."
3. It was put to the plaintiff that she had just accused a woman she had never met and with whom she had spoken over the phone for 45 minutes (Ms Saunders) of fraud. She answered: "A. Well, my answer to that is maybe the word fraud is a bit out of the ordinary because what I'm saying is that she had no right to ring me up, and what she did was bully me because she's telling me what happened and what didn't happen, according to Ruth Cargill, which isn't true, and she's telling me that, you know, we've got to have mediation this way, which just wasn't the right way to conduct mediation, and basically it was a bit suspicious, especially when I checked the phone number."
4. The reference to the plaintiff's checking Ms Saunders' phone number was a reference to the fact that, after this telephone call, the plaintiff googled Ms Saunders' telephone number and found out what she could about her. According to the plaintiff, her searches revealed that Ms Saunders was not a registered mediator.
5. Mrs Shanks replied to the email, confirming that it had been agreed that Ms Saunders be engaged because of her experience in dealing with "these issues". She said further: "Any further discussion re this issue will not take place at the Group Conference as that is not the place for this to happen. Anything further will be discussed at the November Council meeting and all of these discussions must remain within the area of the branch, the group executive, yourself, the mediator and the mentor. As I have said, the more the story is told and retold, the further it goes from the truth and this is not what is needed in this instance. We all need stability and commonsense to draw this whole issue to a successful closure."
6. Mrs Shanks forwarded to Ms Cargill the email she had received from the plaintiff and Mrs Shanks' reply to that email.
7. On 26 August 2015 Ms Saunders emailed Mrs Carolan and Mrs Shanks. She referred to the work she had done to date which involved speaking with participants, including the plaintiff, by telephone. She reported that she had become aware that the plaintiff had engaged in subsequent conversations and sent an email on the topics covered by the mediation. Ms Saunders expressed her opinion that mediation would not result in a successful outcome for the branch, having regard to the plaintiff's lack of respect for the mediation process and the circumstance that the plaintiff's list of issues with branch members was growing. Ms Saunders concluded her email as follows: "Unfortunately I believe the most appropriate and strategically sound resolution in this case is for a decision to expel the member and mentor the existing members. This decision is best made at the region or group level to ensure the branch itself is removed from the decision-making process, and fully supported afterwards."
8. As a consequence of this email, Mrs Tanya Cameron and Mrs Shanks decided that it would not be appropriate to proceed with the mediation. Accordingly, they did not seek a replacement for Ms Saunders.
9. It was not suggested that Ms Saunders had ever been an employee of the CWA or ever held office in the CWA. The company with which she was associated, Natalie Bramble Management, provided consultancy services to the CWA in the form of one-hour workshops which were conducted annually pursuant to a contract between CWA and Natalie Bramble Management. There was some suggestion that, by 2015, the contract between CWA (NSW) and Natalie Bramble Management had been on foot for about 11 years. The plaintiff contended that this circumstance meant that Ms Saunders was not "independent" and that, accordingly, she could not be retained to conduct the mediation, having regard to the terms of the resolution passed on 3 August 2015. This point did not need to be resolved by the CWA as it decided, as referred to above, that mediation would not be proceeded with.
10. On 9 September 2015 Mrs Tanya Cameron and Mrs Shanks wrote to the plaintiff in part as follows: "All of the concerns that you have raised about the operation of the branch have been investigated by Group and State Office Bearers. While they have brought to light some minor discrepancies in practice, there are no major concerns about the operations of the branch. There has been no misappropriation of funds, all grants have been properly expended and no illegal acts. . . . Given your inability to be reconciled to your branch and unwillingness to engage with the mediation process it is now our recommendation that you find another branch to join where you will feel more accepted and may be able to start afresh. Whichever branch you attend you are encouraged to make sure all of your dealings with other members are within the Code of Conduct of the CWA of NSW and not to look for faults in other members. This matter is now considered closed. Please do not raise these issues again."
11. Notwithstanding that the plaintiff had been told on 9 September 2015 that the matter was considered to be closed, on 15 September 2015 she wrote an email to Mrs Carolan, Mrs Barrett, Mrs Shanks and Joan Yeo demanding certain information. She threatened litigation in the following terms: "I trust you will provide such information prior to my Solicitor's meeting with me next Wednesday afternoon, as it would be then through Maurice Blackburn that you will be required to produce such."
12. After this email was put to the plaintiff in cross-examination, the following exchange occurred: "Q. Why didn't you just resign and go to somewhere else? A. What, I was supposed to resign because they were passing around dirty rumours about me in town, in a small town, and destroying my name and character, and that of Mr Collier?"
13. Also on 15 September 2015 the plaintiff sent an email to over 100 people, who were said to be CWA members. It began as follows: "My name is Marion Collier, I transferred from Gulgong in Castlereagh Group to Wellington Branch in Macquarie Group in July 2011. I apologise for inconveniencing all of you, but am writing in desperation of handling this matter "in house". To date, I have not done anything wrong, other than to bring to the attention of my Group, inaccuracies and inconsistencies of Wellington Branch. For this I have been; Bullied, harassed and victimised as you can see, by State Executive, i.e. Tanya Cameron and Ruth Cargill, as well as Macquarie Group President and Secretary."
14. In this email the plaintiff disparaged Mrs Wynne, Ms Beverley Cameron, Mrs Norris, Ms Cargill, Mrs Tanya Cameron, Mrs Carolan and Mrs Blatch, among others.
15. The plaintiff did not accept that she had made serious allegations about various people in the email. It became apparent in the cross-examination of the plaintiff that the only reason she did not accept the proposition was that she took exception to the word "allegation" and contended that what she had said was true. She admitted that she had said that Ms Cargill intentionally misled the President and that she had contacted the Department of Fair Trading on 17 August 2015 herself to find out who could do an independent mediation.
16. On 15 September 2015 at 17.35pm the plaintiff sent an email to Mrs Carolan which was copied to various persons associated with the CWA, including Mrs Barrett and Mrs Shanks, raising further issues about documentation and referring to a meeting with her solicitors, Maurice Blackburn, the following Wednesday.
17. On 16 September 2015 at 8.26am the plaintiff forwarded that email (her email of 15 September 2015 to Mrs Carolan) to Mrs Tanya Cameron under cover of another email which read as follows: "I am forwarding what was forwarded to Macquarie Group executive last evening. Please note that this matter most definately [sic] is not closed, as you as President of the CWA of NSW, has done nothing to assist me as a member. I do not appreciate the lies which have been purportrated [sic], that I have been offered documents and refused to view them. I have not and refused to have it continually said, that I defamed …. in an e-mail. I do suggest that this time, you take notice of the e-mail below, as you did not abide by the wishes of the Macquarie Group of the 3rd of August and have not permitted the 2 Resolutions to be adhered to."
18. On 16 September 2015 at 9.24am the plaintiff sent an email which contained her emails to Mrs Carolan and Mrs Cameron (referred to above) and was sent to various people associated with the CWA, including Margaret Frankham, which was in the following terms: "This is the e-mail sent today in reply to the ridiculous and untrue letter I received on Monday, dated the 9th September 2015. As you can not, Tanya Cameron has refused to address the Code of Conduct against our Group President. It is obvious, you have all been intentionally lied to by Kathie [Carolan] and whoever, I have never been offered access to any documents, thus have never once refused to view such. I am also fed up with the broken record that I am supposed to have defamed someone in an e-mail, but she has refused to tell which and when e-mail [sic], there is no such e-mail, it sounds good".
19. On 29 September 2015 the plaintiff contacted Community Justice Centres to ask for a mediation session with Mrs Tanya Cameron and Mrs Shanks. On 26 October 2015 the Community Justice Centres contacted the plaintiff and told her that Mrs Tanya Cameron accepted her request for mediation on condition that she be provided with an email outlining her reason for the mediation session. By letter dated 18 November 2015 Community Justice Centres informed the plaintiff that mediation is a voluntary process and that the office could not compel anyone to take part in mediation. Accordingly, it told her that it could not commence the mediation process unless and until she had provided the email which Mrs Cameron had requested. The evidence does not reveal that any such email was ever sent by the plaintiff.

The accounts of the Wellington branch for the year ended 30 September 2015

1. Ms Cargill completed the financial statements for the Wellington branch for the year ended 30 September 2015 as Mrs Wynne, who had been elected treasurer on 11 March 2015, did not feel comfortable doing so. These accounts were signed by Ms Cargill as the State treasurer and Ms Beverley Cameron as branch president. The accounts were also audited by Crowe Horwath for that year. Ms Cargill explained that every year selected CWA branches were chosen for "special audits", which had to be done by chartered accountants and that Wellington branch had been selected for that year. Clare Wagner, the audit partner, confirmed that they "found no issues of serious concern".

Final acquittal of the Volunteer Grant made in September 2013

1. On 23 June 2015 Mrs Bell, who was then the President of the Wellington branch, wrote to the Department of Social Services in the following terms: "Please find enclosed Statuary Declaration for the Grant given to the Wellington Branch of C.W.A. We wish to advise you that we did not use all the money of the Grants as when the members saw our plight, they themselves were most generous in their donations, consequently we have a credit balance of $1,256 which we will return with enclosed cheques. One for $1,200 and the other $56.50. The items donated were: Soup Kettles, Cutlery, Crockery. Also enclosed are some photos of the items bought and donated. We wish to thank you for your help to our branch it is very much appreciated."
2. Mrs Bell's letter included a statutory declaration made by Mrs Norris verifying the acquittal of the grant and listing the items purchased with the sum of $2,848.50. Two cheques were enclosed which totalled $1,256.50. These cheques constituted the balance of the grant monies of $4,105.
3. It was noted on the Grant Agreement Acquittal Statement signed by the Grant Agreement Manager of the Department of Social Services on 4 November 2015 that no acquittal of the grant had been required.

Further communication in October 2015 between the plaintiff and the Department of Social Services relating to the grant

1. On 1 October 2015 the plaintiff emailed the Department again about the grant. After observing that it was unusual that the Government had told her that the grant was for emergency relief, she continued: "I still need to find out if there is any paperwork, as to date, I have been blamed for all of this, I was International Officer from October 2012-2014, taking the role of Secretary in October 2014, so had nothing to do with it."
2. The plaintiff rejected the propositions put to her in cross-examination that she was criticising how other people had handled the grant and that no criticisms had been levelled at her regarding the grant, except that she had contacted government departments without the requisite authority of the CWA.
3. On 6 October 2015 the Department of Social Services (by its officer Kate Brown) responded to the plaintiff's email of 1 October 2015 and said in part: "The Department is satisfied that the Country Women's Association (CWA) of NSW Wellington Branch has complied with the Terms and Conditions of its Grant Agreement and there are no outstanding issues for either you or the NSW Wellington Branch of the CWA."
4. The plaintiff sent a further email to the Department of Social Services (to an officer, Tarni) at 21.06pm in the following terms: "I received the e-mail below, which is most definately [sic] incorrect, at no time have I ever received an apology for what was sent to me on the 15th February 2015, as claimed in the 3rd para. On Friday last at approximately 305PM, I received a telephone call, from I believe a Jenifer [sic], who tried to blame me for the deliberate mistake which has never correctly been apologised by this government, of the 15th February 2015. Similarly, when I asked for an apology, all she wanted to give was a verbal one. When I asked for one in writing, I was told it would take some time, since we were going into a public holiday. I do ask that this matter be forwarded to Mr. Christopher Porter, as obviously he runs a very slap happy office and staff like to not communicate with them. Once again, this is not an apology and I request such in writing, this time correctly, since at no time in the letter resent by you, is there any mention that I was told the wrong information by mistake. Such mistakes should not be occurring. I enclose the e-mail to you, which this Kate, whatever her position is, chose to delete from the e-mail sent today."
5. The plaintiff sent a further email of complaint to the Department of Social Services on 27 October 2015 in the following terms: "I have been advised to forward this to you, as it is believed that it is a departmental officer that rang me by the name of Jennifer. I am also complaining about this Kate, as I was assured I would get an apology from whoever on the Tuesday after the long weekend and to date have not received such. I was initially sent incorrect information, I mislaid a letter sent to me around the 1st of April, but when resent from Tarni, I note it does not address the fact that the mistake was the departments and not mine. I do expect an apology and a suitable apology for the inconvenience and trouble the department has caused over this matter."
6. The plaintiff did not accept in cross-examination that she had improperly communicated with a government department. She asserted, in mitigation, that her recollection of the period between March and October 2015 was poor because she had a bad lung problem in that period.

The complaints by Beverley Cameron and others about the plaintiff

1. On 4 November 2015 Mrs Cameron emailed Mrs Tanya Cameron asking for the plaintiff to be expelled from the CWA in the following terms: "I am writing to ask for the expulsion of CWA member Marion Collier under section 15 page 7 of the Rules and Regulations of CWA. Mrs Collier has not stopped her year long vendetta against members of Wellington branch, nor did she comply with attempts at arbitration She continues to run down members of Wellington branch to any unfortunate who she can pull into a conversation. We have been held up as some sort of witches coven, with her the victim, while in fact it is Mrs Collier making all the trouble. Our books have been taken and scrutinised even though we had passed not one but two audits at the end of 2014. No one has ever asked for the unsanitised version of the Agenda which Mrs Collier had prepared for the February 15 meeting. We were forced to listen to her 'List of Wrongs' at Talbragar Council meeting, without the right of reply, a decision which left us looking like the guilty parties once again, In fact we have never been given the opportunity to challenge Marion Collier and the stories she has 'promoted'. With the end of the year fast approaching I request that Head Office use its power and remove this woman from CWA membership and make it impossible for her to join another branch and possibly subject both them and Head Office to a repeat of what Wellington had to endure."
2. On 12 November 2015 Fiona Shepherd of the Wellington branch also complained to Mrs Tanya Cameron about the plaintiff and requested her expulsion. She said in part that people in Wellington had approached her to ask her what the plaintiff's problem with the CWA was as the plaintiff "has been saying nasty things about the Wellington CWA and its members."
3. On 15 February 2016 Ms Beverley Cameron emailed Ms Wilkins and Mrs Bell as follows: "I am again writing re our troublesome member Marion Collier This woman has held Wellington Branch to ransom for nearly a year now. As my previous letter has been lost I will fill you in. I was and, am applying to have Marion Collier expelled under rule 15 "Disciplining of Members" page 7 of the rule book for 2015. Since February 2015 this member has constantly sought to bring Wellington branch to its knees because she wouldn't accept being told by the president at the time, Beverley Cameron (me) that she had no authority to make arrangements for walls to be knocked out of the CWA building, to make agreements with a then tenant to install a new toilet That she could not call the Mayor a liar or the Roads and Water Board people liars, while harassing their employees on the job, and generally defaming us and other people in town. I am sure you have had a chance to read the minutes of the previous meeting which Mrs Collier wrote. Unfortunately what ever has been said to Mrs Collier by head office has had no effect on her. She has accessed members emails in other areas the state President and I am told even The South Pacific President. Wellington has been left feeling like the branch has been abandoned, and if not for the concerted efforts of Mrs Helen Norris keeping us going last year and the friendship of Wongarbon Branch and the then Group president we probably would now be closed after 92yrs. Not because we don't want to be here but we cannot take any more. We have had to endure being called to a council meeting where Mrs Collier appeared like a Q C at a trial, with a 4" file of paper, was allowed to read out her "accusations" then we were sent outside to await out fate without right of reply. We were assured that H/O would take action but so far none has been seen. To date we have never been given the right of reply but have been given a mentor who will soon leave us. What will happen then, Mrs Collier is letigious [sic] and will not balk at attempting to take us severally and individually to court for any one of our "transgressions This madam President is not 'Justice' even a murderer gets a right to defend himself, but we have been gagged and have still not been allowed to speak for ourselves. All our records were taken the afternoon of the meeting in question. When our mentor leaves will Mrs Collier return and will we then be forced to endure more of her disruptions and badmouthing around town. this is a small town and reputations are easily destroyed, unfortunately they are not easily repaired. Please Madame President, remove this woman and let Wellington return to being a healthy and vibrant club again, we don't want to close but i fear none of us can repeat 2015 again. Head Office has had a full year to consider and seek legal assistance and we need to know where we stand are we a branch which can go on or are we going to be destroyed to satisfy the ire of one woman."

The letter of complaint dated 11 March 2016

1. Between 15 February 2016 and 11 March 2016 Mrs Tanya Cameron reviewed all of the CWA records pertaining to the plaintiff, including correspondence associated with the plaintiff, in order to prepare a notice of complaint to be issued to the plaintiff pursuant to reg 15(2) of the CWA Constitution. Mrs Tanya Cameron tried to include as much information as possible so that the plaintiff could understand the nature of the complaints made against her. She consulted the file in the NSW State office of the CWA, which contained all the information on which she relied to prepare the letter which was sent on 11 March 2016 referred to below.
2. On 11 March 2016 the CWA sent the plaintiff a letter of complaint in which it set out various allegations that had been made against the plaintiff. It said as follows: "I am writing to give you notice that a complaint has been made to the State Executive Committee in relation to yourself pursuant to Regulation 15 of the CWA Regulations and Rules. [Regulation 15 set out] Examples of the complaint (which have occurred over a period of time) are as follows: • You have been disrespectful, derogatory and discriminatory towards one or more members of the Wellington Branch • You have defamed members of the branch within the local community by making false accusations of impropriety • You have constantly harassed members of the branch, group and state office bearers and accused them of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards you • You have included in branch agendas and minutes (which are public documents) insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures and branch members • You have resisted and derailed all attempts at branch, group and state level to assist with issues raised by you concerning operations of the Wellington Branch and have refused to accept the findings of investigations into your initial complaints/concerns • Following a Group Council Meeting you failed to comply with the resolutions of the Group and actively derailed and caused the cancellation of the mediation process between Macquarie Group Executive and members of the branch • You refused to comply with direct instruction from the Group and State President, specifically in relation to confidentiality • A specific breach of the confidentiality directive was the sending of an "open email"(making false accusations against the State President, State Treasurer, Group President and Group Secretary) to over 200 branch and group secretaries throughout NSW thereby revealing members' private email addresses. These allegations are of a serious nature. Taken together they allege a pattern of behaviour on your part that, if the complaint is proven, would entitle the State Executive to conclude that you have persistently and wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Association. Such a conclusion would entitle the State Executive to resolve pursuant to Regulation 15(3) that you be expelled as a member of the Association or that your membership be suspended for a period. If you wish to make a submission to the State Executive Committee in connection with the complaint you must do so addressed to the State Secretary, by email [provided] or letter to [address provided] which must reach us by no later than 4.00pm on 29 March 2016. If we have not received a submission from you (via email or mail) by that time the State Executive Committee will proceed to determine the complaint on the basis of the information before it."
3. The plaintiff cross-examined Ms Cargill about the evidence she had to make the allegations which were made by the CWA through Mrs Tanya Cameron in the letter of 11 March 2016. Ms Cargill explained that, although they had received many complaints from people about the plaintiff, they included (in the letter of particulars referred to below) reference to the complaints which had actually been made in writing. The plaintiff put to Ms Cargill that she could not prove the allegations in the letter of 11 March 2016 to which she responded: "The letter of allegation didn't need to prove. We were - there were allegations being made. We didn't need to investigate them. We needed to put them to you to give your side of the story which is what that letter of allegation did."
4. Mrs Tanya Cameron explained in re-examination the reason for the CWA's decision to allow more than 14 days for a response, which was the minimum required by reg 15(2)(b) of the CWA Constitution. She said that as the notice was sent at about 4pm on 11 March 2016, they allowed an additional four days (after 25 March 2016) to take account of the two weekends that fell in that period. She also noted that the plaintiff's letter requesting particulars was sent on 12 March 2016, which was a Saturday. The CWA wanted to obtain legal advice on how to respond, which was not possible until Monday 14 March 2016. It then took three further days to prepare the particulars which were sent on 17 March 2016. Mrs Tanya Cameron's view was that this timing was reasonable.
5. On 12 March 2016 the plaintiff responded by seeking particulars of the complaint. She concluded the letter as follows: "The writer looks forward to exhausting all her legal avenues, to obtain retribution for the treatment she has received since January 2015 up and until the present time."
6. I am satisfied that when the plaintiff used the word "retribution" in the final paragraph of her letter of 12 March 2016 extracted above, she meant to say "restitution" as she said in her evidence that she wanted "amends for lies and defamation".
7. From 12 March 2016 until 17 March 2016 Mrs Tanya Cameron prepared a lengthy response to the request for particulars and provided examples of the behaviour complained of.
8. By letter of 17 March 2016 signed by Mrs Tanya Cameron, the CWA provided the particulars sought by the plaintiff of the letter of complaint of 11 March 2016. I propose to reproduce only those passages from the particulars which are relevant to the question whether the imputations alleged were carried. These are: 1 You have been disrespectful, derogatory and discriminatory towards one or more members of the Wellington Branch . . . (e) An email conversation between yourself and Debbie Wynne in February 2015 became increasingly hostile toward Debbie. When one of your questions was not answered immediately, you replied "Since that was 24 hours ago, could you please answer the question asked of you?" The tone of the email was hostile and bullying. Debbie replied that she would only talk to you when the President was present - this was because of the hostile nature of the email and she wanted a witness to any further discussion. (f) In the May 2015 minutes, rather than reading a miswording as the mistake it obviously was, you chose to make the mischievous and false accusation against members of the branch that the wording of the minutes was 'defamatory and malicious'. . . . 2 You have defamed members of the branch within the local community by making false accusations of impropriety (a) You made an unjustified allegation of fraud against the Branch Secretary (Pat Bell) on 16 February 2015 concerning the Branch's accounts. The branch's accounts were examined by Barbara Barrett and Ruth Cargill. When the investigation found that while there were some things the branch could do better there certainly was nothing fraudulent in the accounts. At the March meeting, Ruth presented the branch with a list of things which they needed to fix, which they proceeded to attend to over the coming months. (b) Fiona Shepherd on 12 November 2015 advised that she had been approached by people in her town to tell her that you had been 'saying nasty things about the Wellington CWA and its members'. (c) Beverley Cameron on 15 February 2016 advised that you had been '...generally defaming us and other people in town'. 3 You have constantly harassed members of the Branch, Group and State office bearers and accused them of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards you (a) When you emailed your initial complaint to the Group President on 11 February 2015, before she had time to deal with it, you kept adding extra offences against your branch. Five phone calls and four emails in three days left the Group President feeling harassed. When she asked you to stop sending emails until she could properly investigate your complaints, you refused to comply and accused her of not investigating when what she was trying to do was deal with the complaints you had already made. (b) In one of your own emails you acknowledge your harassing behaviour: You will be wishing you never set type to computer and sent me the below e-mail, obviously you got more then you bargained for, I had to ring Kathie the other day, after she sent all VP's an e-mail, I bet she was very sorry when she asked how I was and I told her, I was when she told me it was 10 years to the day since her mother died and had breathing problems before hand. (c) The Group President asked for help from the State President in how to best deal with the situation in your branch and received a phone call from her on 18 February 2015 at a group function. When the Group President then put into place the things discussed with the State President you accused the Group President of bullying. You also accused her of lying because she went outside to speak to the State President on the phone; you claimed that the she had said the State President was there in person. Even when every other person you asked said you were mistaken, you continued to claim that the Group President had lied to you. As you then made an accusation of bullying against the Group President, someone else had to be asked to chair the March Meeting. (d) When Group Secretary Marjorie Blatch was concerned about your wellbeing and tried to arrange to meet with you before the March branch meeting, you accused her of bullying you. (e) When the then State Vice President chaired your branch's March meeting in 2016 you then accused her of bullying you, because she would not let you speak over other people or side-track the discussion. (f) On several occasions you have made unjustified threats of legal action against branch members and group and state office bearers, which appear to be to intimidate them with this threat hanging over them. (Examples: your emails to the State President on 12 March 2015 and to the Group President on 15 September 2015). Your branch members, such as Debbie Wynne on 8 October 2015, Helen Norris on 9 October 2015 and Bev Cameron on 15 February 2016, have expressed concern about saying or doing anything at all for the branch because of your constant threat to sue them. (g) In your email of 15 September 2015, you make accusations against the State President, State Treasurer (then State Vice President), Group President and Group Secretary. 4 You have included in Branch agendas and minutes (which are public documents) insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures and branch members The following are examples of such comments in the branch agendas and minutes (a) Darren rang from Troy Grant's office and again lied, said the money for the garden beds was from Bungarra???, for the beautification of the CBD, the CWA building, is not in the CBD. (b) List of outwards correspondence (Feb Agenda) General Manager said money was from RMS, rang RMS and they knew nothing, contacted Troy Grant's office re the lies about the RMS. (c) Contacted Paul Toole's office, on both my own and the deception over the flower beds, as well as, the out servicing of council, so was unable to have a discussion from any person from, the building department on Monday, as there was no-one, as well as no reply for a requested meeting. 5 You have resisted and derailed all attempts at branch, group and state level to assist with issues raised by you concerning operations of the Wellington Branch and have refused to accept the findings of investigations into your initial complaints/concerns (a) When the Group President tried to investigate your complaints on 14 February 2015, and you were asked not to speak to anyone while things were being investigated, you acted contrary to this reasonable request. Instead you unreasonably inflamed the situation by making calls and sending emails between 14 and 18 February and contacting the branch's bank "to examine what was transpiring at the bank". You then accused the Group President of bullying on 20 February 2015 which had the effect of making her unable to continue the investigation. (b) All members of the branch were given the opportunity at the March 2015 meeting to air their grievances about what had been happening at the branch. When the branch members mentioned things that had been happening that they thought were wrong, you agreed with them, even though they were things you had been doing. The branch then made the decision to declare all positions vacant and all positions were re-elected. You attempted to disrupt this process by advancing the groundless argument that proper procedure had not been followed. (c) You were asked by the State President on 27 February 2015 to refrain from talking to anyone else about your concerns until they could be properly investigated. You refused to comply with the President's reasonable request and continued to contact people, including Past State President Elaine Armstrong and State Vice President Jill Roughly in March 2015. 6 Following a Group Council Meeting you failed to comply with the resolutions of the Group and actively derailed and caused the cancellation of the mediation process between the Macquarie Group Executive and members of the branch The group allowed you to make a presentation to the August Council Meeting and they came up with two resolutions. Mediation was arranged, but you breached the confidentiality of the mediation by immediately discussing the issues by phone and email with persons outside of the mediation, such as Ruth Shanks on 15 August 2015. As a direct result of these actions on your part, the mediator said there was no point proceeding and the mediation did not take place. 7 You refused to comply with direct instruction from the Group and State President, specifically in relation to confidentiality In the Special Meeting on 18 February 2015 you were asked to keep matters confidential. The State President also directed you in this regard in her email of 27 February 2015. You have repeatedly raised these matters since then, most notably in your mass email of 15 September 2015 which revealed hundreds of members' email addresses because you did not use the "bcc" facility. While Secretaries' emails are available online, they are not provided en masse - they can only be obtained by looking up the branch or group. Our CWA directory which contains email addresses is not a public document. . . ."
9. At about 1pm on 29 March 2016, prior to the deadline of 4pm, the plaintiff provided her response to the complaint by a 56-page email. On that date she also sent a USB stick which contained a further 44 documents. As she did not post it until 29 March 2016, it did not arrive by 4pm on 29 March 2016.

The State Executive Council Extraordinary Meeting on 1 April 2016

1. On 1 April 2016 there was a meeting of the State Executive of the CWA which was chaired by Mrs Tanya Cameron and attended by State office bearers (including Ms Cargill), Ms Wilkins and a delegate from each Group. The first matter which was considered was whether the further material which the plaintiff had foreshadowed would be provided ought be considered. It was resolved by majority that the further material on the USB stick ought not be accepted as it was received after the deadline on 29 March 2016.
2. At the meeting on 1 April 2016 it was resolved that disciplinary action should be taken against the plaintiff and that she be expelled from the CWA.
3. Ms Wilkins then told the meeting that if the plaintiff decided to appeal the decision, a special meeting would need to take place at the AGM in Cowra in May 2016, which would require information to be sent out to all delegates.
4. Before closing the meeting Mrs Tanya Cameron reminded those present that the discussions at the meeting were to remain confidential.
5. By letter of 1 April 2016 the CWA wrote to the plaintiff to inform her that the State Executive was satisfied that the allegations in the complaint were true. The letter continued: "In summary, the State Executive found that: 1 You have been disrespectful, derogatory and discriminatory towards one or more members of the Wellington Branch. 2 You have defamed members of the branch within the local community by making false accusations of impropriety. 3 You have constantly harassed members of the Branch, Group and State office bearers and accused them of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards you. 4 You have included in Branch agendas and minutes (which are public documents) insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures and branch members. 5 You have resisted and derailed all attempts at branch, group and state level to assist with issues raised by you concerning operations of the Wellington Branch and have refused to accept the findings of investigations into your initial complaints/concerns. 6 Following a Group Council Meeting you failed to comply with the resolutions of the Group and actively derailed and caused the cancellation of the mediation process between the Macquarie Group Executive and members of the branch. 7 You refused to comply with direct instruction from the Group and State President, specifically in relation to confidentiality."
6. The letter concluded by informing the plaintiff of her right of appeal under reg 15(6)(i) of the CWA Constitution.

The plaintiff's appeal

1. On 5 April 2016 the plaintiff lodged an appeal against the decision to expel her. She listed the following grounds of appeal: lack of procedural fairness; acting under dictation; real or apprehended bias; inflexible application of a policy; taking into account irrelevant considerations; failing to take into account relevant considerations; extraneous (improper) purpose; error of law on the face of the record; "Wednesbury" unreasonableness; no evidence; and bad faith.
2. On 13 April 2016 Danica Leys, who had commenced as the CEO of CWA (NSW) in early April 2016, sent the April Letter to the 545 delegates entitled to vote on the appeal. As referred to above the April Letter with its attachments comprised the matter complained of in the defamation proceedings. The April Letter comprised a covering letter dated 13 April 2016, notifying delegates of a Special Meeting convened pursuant to reg 15 in relation to the plaintiff, and enclosed the following documents: 1. The Notice of Meeting - with the sole agenda item being to consider whether to confirm the resolution of the State Executive Committee to expel the plaintiff; 2. A letter to the plaintiff dated 11 March 2016 notifying her that a complaint had been made and setting out reg 15 and setting out the substance of the complaints made against her; 3. A letter to the plaintiff dated 17 March 2016 providing her with further particulars of the complaints (in response to her request for particulars dated 12 March 2016); 4. Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the State Executive of the CWA held on 1 April 2016 in which it was decided to expel the plaintiff from the CWA; 5. A letter to the plaintiff dated 1 April 2016 informing her of the decision to expel her, the reasons and her rights of appeal; and 6. The plaintiff's letter of 5 April 2016 giving notice of her intention to appeal.
3. On the same day, 13 April 2016, Mrs Tanya Cameron also provided these documents to the plaintiff. She informed the plaintiff of the following: "You will be provided with a maximum of 10 minutes at this meeting to verbally state your case as to why you should not be expelled from the CWA. I also extend an invitation to you to provide a brief supplementary written submission to delegates. Your written material must not be over 10 pages in length. Additionally, the Executive Committee reserves the right not to circulate the material if it is deemed to be defamatory."

The commencement of the proceedings

1. On 21 April 2016 the plaintiff commenced the Defamation proceedings by filing a statement of claim in this Court. By letter dated 27 April 2016 the CWA informed the plaintiff that the statement of claim and affidavit in support would not be provided to the delegates who were to attend the meeting on 3 May 2016 as the documents were too long and it was not appropriate that court documents be provided.

The meeting on 3 May 2016

1. The plaintiff did not attend the meeting on 3 May 2016, which was chaired by Mrs Tanya Cameron. Ms Cargill attended the meeting as she was then the State Honorary Treasurer of CWA (NSW). Mrs Blatch also attended the meeting as she was, as Macquarie Group President (a position which she had held since October 2013), a delegate with voting rights. Mrs Blatch was given the opportunity to address the meeting. She said words to the following effect: "Ladies, this issue should have been resolved within our group long ago - but unfortunately Mrs Collier was unwilling to cooperate with any suggestions on a resolution process, but instead went outside our group, our state and even outside our association with complaints against the Wellington Branch and also a number of members of CWA of NSW. The culmination of the problem was the lead up to, and our August Council meeting. Members of Macquarie Group resolved to order mediation between Mrs Collier and Wellington branch as well as mediation between the Group Executive and Mrs Collier, but Mrs Collier thwarted this process. As you are all now aware the group Executive initially tried to address the issues raised by Mrs Collier, which led to members being harassed and intimidated, with numerous phone calls and emails. This has brought disharmony in branches across our Macquarie Group. Ladies, I can assure you that members of Wellington branch and Macquarie Group executive, over the last two years; and their families have suffered considerably [sic] harm due to severe emotional distress caused by Marion's unreasonable behaviour. Abusive, insulting and offensive language and comments, unjust criticism and complaints and the spreading of misinformation and malicious rumours has caused several members to resort to medication to quell their anxiety, and even consider resigning their membership of the CWA and their long term health issues could be even more profound. It saddens my heart to be here today and say these things but I believe that expulsion is the only way we can get closure and peace of mind for the Wellington members as well as members of Macquarie Group."
2. The result of the special meeting was communicated to the plaintiff by Ms Leys by email sent at 5.05pm on 3 May 2016 in the following terms: "The decision to expel you as a member of the organisation pursuant with the process outlined in Regulation 15, Disciplining of Members, part (1)(b) of the Regulations and Rules, was decided by conference delegates in the affirmative. As such, I formally notify you, on behalf of the State President, that your expulsion from the organisation is now final."
3. Mrs Tanya Cameron concluded her term as CWA (NSW) President in May 2016.

Cross-examination on the pleadings

1. The pleadings comprised the statement of claim, the defence and the reply. In the usual course they would define and confine the issues in the proceedings. However, it became clear when the plaintiff was cross-examined that she took a particular view of certain allegations, which influenced her response in the reply.
2. For example, in paragraph 9 of the defence, the CWA pleaded the defence of justification under s 25 of the Act, that is, that the imputations alleged by the plaintiff were substantially true. Particular (d) to paragraph 9 alleged: "From time to time the Plaintiff attended meetings of the Wellington Branch."
3. In her reply, the plaintiff answered, in response to (d), "The Plaintiff disagrees with 'The Defence'". It became clear in cross-examination that the plaintiff disagreed with particular (d) to paragraph 9 because she considered that the words "from time to time" implied a degree of casualness to which she took exception since she only missed meetings when there was a reason for her absence. Moreover, she explained in her answers in cross-examination that the paragraph implied that she did not attend meetings of any other branch when, in fact, she attended functions organised by other branches. The plaintiff's evidence also made clear that she considered that, since the defendant had particularised that she became a member of the CWA on about 1 October 2010, it was not correct to refer solely to her attendance at the meetings of the Wellington branch as she had formerly been a member of the Gulgong branch.
4. Ms Chrysanthou's cross-examination of the plaintiff included the following exchange: "Q. I want to suggest to you that the reason you are reading it that way is because you are highly suspicious of every other person and you read in to things, things that aren't there. A. Well, no, I don't. I think you're the one that's not reading it properly because you could turn around and come back with a submission and say, 'Mrs Collier agreed she only ever attended functions organised by the Wellington branch,' and you could be perfectly correct if I suggest I agree with you."
5. It emerged in the cross-examination that the plaintiff considered that every allegation in the defence, including the particulars, was necessarily to be viewed with suspicion and as a criticism. The following passage illustrates her perspective: "Q. I want to suggest to you this particular [9(d)] is not a critical particular of you. It's just making a statement? A. It's your defence. Q. So you think everything that's written down about you is critical in this defence? A. In the defence it would be because the defence is what's supposed to be your case from what I'm taking."
6. The plaintiff's view of the meaning of defamation was also illustrated by her response to particular 9(g) of the defence of justification in which it was alleged that from time to time she included insulting and defamatory comments about public figures in Branch agendas and minutes (the three instances were taken from the minutes of 11 February 2015). Although the plaintiff did not dispute that the minutes she prepared included the statements alleged, she disagreed, on the ground that they were true, that they were insulting, derogatory or defamatory.
7. The plaintiff confirmed her evidence that she had never said anything defaming, disrespectful, derogatory against any person, whether a member of the CWA or not.

Other matters of potential relevance to damages

1. The plaintiff and Mr Collier met in 1973, were married in 1976 and divorced in 1999. By 2001 they were living under the same roof again, although it is not clear on what terms. On about 28 March 2017 Mr Collier left, although he returned to look after the house and the dogs while the plaintiff was appearing in these proceedings. Mr Collier explained in his evidence that since problems started between the plaintiff and the CWA in 2015, it had caused a lot of stress and distress, torment and arguments between him and the plaintiff. Mr Collier blamed their eventual "split up" "mainly on the CWA". When cross-examined about their recent separation he said: "[U]ltimately it was the - the - the court case itself. It was the - initially the - the happenings around February of 2015, the culmination of all that period of time, it caused a lot of tension between the two of us. And finally, it was - it was the stage where we just - we both fell out of love with each other. So it was - it was both - a combination of, you know, being distressed over - over the matters that have happened, the accusations that, you know, have occurred around town against Marion, and ultimately affecting me in my - my credibility in the town. Things like that. That was the main cause why I left."
2. Mr Collier admitted in cross-examination that in July 2017 he had posted a Facebook entry in which he described the plaintiff as a "self-opinionated, self-righteous, egotistical scumbag of a woman". He said that he had deleted the comments but, in further cross-examination, he admitted that he had only deleted them on 7 November 2017. Ms Chrysanthou put to him that he had only removed the posts when he was told, on 7 November 2017 by the plaintiff that she had been asked some questions about the Facebook posts. I do not accept Mr Collier's evidence that he did not speak to the plaintiff about these proceedings and am satisfied from the circumstance referred to above that he did.

The plaintiff's credibility

1. It was plain from the plaintiff's evidence that she regarded herself as responsible, in her role as branch secretary, for whatever had gone on before she was elected to that position. She took it upon herself not only to investigate the grant but also to check the leases to the various organisations that occupied the hall owned by the CWA.
2. She found error wherever she looked and felt obliged to point it out, not only to members of the Wellington branch and others associated with the CWA but also to counsel for the defendant whom the plaintiff accused of having "got muddled up" and of being "dyslexic" when she referred to Steve King (the cleaner, see below) as Stephen King.
3. The plaintiff regarded herself as a stickler for proper procedure and detail. She was quick to leap to the conclusion that others had behaved improperly, even criminally, where there was no basis for any inference other than, in some cases, that people had been mistaken. She appeared to be fixated with the secretary's responsibility for preparing the minutes and took great exception to the steps taken by Ms Cargill to remove offensive or inappropriate material from the minutes which the plaintiff had prepared so that the official records of the CWA would not be infected by such comments. The plaintiff alleged that the preparation of minutes by anyone who did not hold the position of secretary was unauthorised.
4. The plaintiff also identified the "minutes" which had been provided to the Commonwealth Bank to establish the positions held in the Wellington branch by those who were nominated as signatories to the account held by the CWA in Wellington and contended that they were not a complete copy of the minutes of the meeting on the relevant day. She concluded that there was something untoward about providing a document to the Commonwealth Bank which was, in effect, an extract from the minutes rather than the full minutes. She also took exception to the description on the document provided to the bank of "extraordinary general meeting" on "11 March 3015" when the meeting was, in fact, a general monthly meeting of the Wellington branch on 11 March 2015. Her reaction was one of many examples in the evidence to her way of thinking, which was to find error (including where there was none) and assume that any perceived error or irregularity was deliberate, malevolent and, on some occasions, criminal. Indeed, in her written submissions she, without any proper basis, accused those who prepared the minute which was forwarded to the Commonwealth Bank of inducing acceptance of a false document contrary to s 251 of the Crimes Act.
5. The plaintiff reacted to perceived conflict in a grandiose manner. Her response when she learned that Mrs Norris had asked Mr King to clean for another month was to accuse her of "undermining" her position as secretary. The plaintiff's response to this, and other matters, was rude, unreasonable, disproportionate and provocative. She displayed no compunction in belittling others.
6. The reason for the plaintiff's disposition as described above is not clear. There was no expert evidence to connect it with any mental illness, although this possibility was hypothesised by Ms Cargill, Mrs Carolan and Mrs Blatch.
7. It was put to the plaintiff on several occasions that she had deliberately lied in her evidence. Although her evidence was, on several occasions, inconsistent with objective facts or incontrovertible evidence, I do not infer from that disparity that the plaintiff actually lied. Rather, it was my impression that the lens through which she viewed the world was affected in some way such that she genuinely believed, or came to believe, in the truth of what she was asserting. In the main, the inconsistencies between her evidence and those of others arose because she could not accept that something was a mere typographical mistake (as in the reference in the document provided to the Commonwealth Bank as to the positions occupied by those authorised as signatories to the bank account to 11 March 3015, instead of 2015); a mistake in description (as in the minutes being described as being for an extraordinary general meeting, rather than a general meeting); or something which the plaintiff believed to be a mistake, but which was not a mistake at all (such as the circumstance that the leases bore a date after their commencement dates).
8. The plaintiff's investigation of the federal grant which was paid to the Wellington branch in September 2013 was as persistent as it was misguided. Her description of what occurred with the grant as "a complete scenario of weird events" says much about her state of mind and nothing about the objective facts which have been recounted elsewhere in these reasons.
9. These matters made her an unreliable, though not necessarily untruthful, witness. I do not accept her evidence on any matter unless it was corroborated, accepted by the defendant, or against interest.
10. I note for completeness that I observed that the plaintiff tended to speak over people in Court (witnesses, Mrs Chrysanthou, and myself). She also tended to be critical of any errors made by others in court (as to page numbers or names). She was also, at times, rude. I confirm that I have not taken into account any of these matters in determining whether the plaintiff was telling the truth as she saw it or whether the defendant had established the truth of the imputations alleged.

The credibility of Mr Collier

1. Mr Collier admitted that he had read the pleadings and the evidence in these proceedings. Indeed, he had copies of affidavits sworn by the CWA's witnesses with him when he gave evidence by telephone. As referred to above, I do not accept his denial that he did not discuss the case with the plaintiff. I did not regard him as a reliable witness because of his obvious allegiance with the plaintiff and the extent to which he had involved himself in the litigation. The words and phrases he used in his evidence bore such a striking resemblance to those used by the plaintiff, and were frequently identical, as to make the inference of collaboration irresistible.

The credibility of other witnesses

1. I accept the evidence of the remaining witnesses, Ms Leys, Mrs Tanya Cameron, Ms Cargill, Mrs Carolan (called by the defendant) and Mrs Jones (called by the plaintiff). I also accept the evidence of Mrs Blatch, who is in a separate category because she could not be cross-examined due to a personal reason. Her evidence was corroborated by other witnesses whose evidence I accept and by contemporaneous documents. Although the circumstance that she was not cross-examined has the potential to affect the weight given to her evidence, I discern no reason to reduce the weight of her evidence, having regard to the other evidence in the proceedings. The minor differences in the evidence of the witnesses referred to above, such as the capacity in which Mrs Jones attended the in camera meeting on 18 February 2015, was consistent with the credibility of each.
2. I note that Ms Leys was present in court for the whole proceedings. Objection was taken to her presence by the plaintiff from the outset. Ms Chrysanthou contended that as her role was as CEO of the CWA (a position which she has held since April 2016) and her evidence was largely formal, she ought be permitted to remain in Court as she was, relevantly, the human agent of the CWA and the source of its instructions to its legal representatives. On this basis, I permitted Ms Leys to remain in court, notwithstanding that she was also a witness. I do not consider that her presence in court affected her evidence, which, as I have said, was largely formal and not affected by the evidence given by other witnesses. Her evidence established that the documents referred to were provided to the head office of CWA (NSW), which formed the subject of the letter of 11 March 2016, the letter of particulars dated 17 March 2016 and, ultimately, the matter complained of (the letter of 13 April 2016).

Introduction

1. The plaintiff's claim in defamation is limited to the publication of The April Letter (dated 13 April 2016) to delegates in anticipation of a special general meeting of the CWA to be held on 3 May 2016.
2. The defendant relies on the defences of common law qualified privilege, statutory qualified privilege, justification and contextual truth. In reply to the statutory and common law defences of qualified privilege the plaintiff relies on malice.

The imputations alleged

1. The plaintiff alleged the following imputations: Imputation (para of statement of claim) Imputation a ([7]) That the plaintiff persistently and wilfully acted in a manner, prejudicial to the interests of members of the defendant. b ([8]) That the plaintiff has been disrespectful, to members of defendant. c ([9]) That the plaintiff, has been derogatory to members of the Wellington Branch of the defendant. d ([10]) That the plaintiff, has been discriminatory, to members of the Wellington Branch of defendant. e ([11]) That the plaintiff, has been hostile and bullying, in an e-mail to a Wellington Branch member/Ms Debbie Wynne, by quoting from an e-mail: "Since that was 24 hours ago, could you please answer the question asked of you?" f ([12]) That the plaintiff, has been defamatory and malicious, by being defamed, the defendant, to the amount of $102.00, in the Wellington Branch, May 2015 Minutes, when she was only owed $0.15. g ([13]) That the plaintiff defamed Wellington Branch members of the defendant, within the local community. h ([14]) That the plaintiff has harassed members of the Wellington Branch, of the defendant, accusing them of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards the plaintiff. i ([15]) That the plaintiff has harassed members of the Macquarie Group, of the defendant, accusing them of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards the plaintiff. j ([16]) That the plaintiff has harassed members of the State Executive, of the defendant, accusing them of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards the plaintiff. k ([17]) That the plaintiff, entered into the Branch Agenda (a public document) on the 12th November 2014, "insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures." l ([18]) That the plaintiff, entered into the Branch Minutes (a public document) on the 12th November 2014, insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures. m ([19]) That the plaintiff, entered into the Branch Agenda (a public document) on the 11th February 2015, "insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures". n ([20]) The plaintiff, entered into the Branch Minutes (a public document) on the 11th February 2015, "insulting and possibly defamatory comments about public figures". o ([21]) That the plaintiff resisted all attempts, at either Wellington Branch, Macquarie Group or at the State level of the defendant, to assist, in the investigating concerns/complaints, raised by the plaintiff against, the defendant, as no investigation into the operations of the defendant's Wellington Branch, occurred. p ([22]) That the plaintiff refused to accept decisions, at either Wellington Branch, Macquarie Group or at the State level, of the defendant. q ([23]) That the plaintiff failed to abide by a resolution of the August 2015 Group Council, of the Macquarie Group of the defendant, causing the independent mediation to be derailed by the plaintiff. r ([24]) That the plaintiff failed to abide by a resolution of the August 2015 Group Council, of the Macquarie Group of the defendant, causing the mentor not to personally contact the plaintiff to uphold the second resolution, for a mentor to be appointed to run all Wellington Branch meetings of the defendant. s ([25]) That the plaintiff signed or verbally gave an undertaking of confidentiality to either the State then President/Mrs Tanya Cameron or the Macquarie Group then President/Mrs Kathie Carolan of the defendant. t ([26] That the plaintiff breached a Confidentiality agreement, by sending, an "open email". Thereby, the plaintiff disclosed private e-mail addresses of Branch members of the Defendant. u ([27]) That the plaintiff, made false allegations, against the State President, Treasurer, the then Macquarie Group President and Secretary in these "open e-mails", to over 200 fellow Branch members of the defendant. v ([29]) That the plaintiff had immediately before the 11th. March 2015 fully and with intent breached the CWA Constitution, Rules and Regulations. w [30] That the CWA's State Treasurer/Miss. Ruth Cargill, on the 3rd. August 2015, at the Macquarie Group Council stated: "I instructed Mrs Blatch to telephone Marion, I said, if Marion was my friend, I would think she had Bipolar disorder." x [32] That the plaintiff had brought the CWA into disrepute, solely by a telephone call to Mrs Kathie Carolan, who was present at the February 2016 Wellington Branch Meeting, thus the person, the plaintiff, telephoned, as to why the Treasurer was sending out "Unofficial Minutes".

1. The plaintiff also included, in [29] of the statement of claim, at the end of imputation v (set out above), the following: "However the Defendant/then State President and Macquarie Group President's [sic], without due cause, on Tuesday the 18th, February 2015, removed the Plaintiff from her position of Branch member at Wellington, of the Defendant, some 13 months earlier."
2. This sentence must be excised from imputation v. since it is a statement relating to others and does not amount to an imputation against the plaintiff. It forms part of the narrative and is addressed in my findings set out above.
3. The plaintiff also alleged, as imputations, the following in [33] and [34] of her statement of claim: "[33] The Defendant, was notified, the Express Post item, of a flashdrive/evidence (32MB), was awaiting delivery on the 30th. March 2016. This item, was NEVER taken delivery, of until the 8th. April 2016 from Australia Post/Mascot, some seven (7) days after the upholding of the imputed claims against the Plaintiff as proven. The written submission of fifty-five(55) pages accompanying the flashdrive, had been emailed to the Defendant, the previous day, the 29th. March 2016. The State President, intentionally Informed the Executive Meeting on the 1st. April 2016, that the Plaintiff's submission, received at 1.51 PM on the 29th. March 2016, was received late, to have this submission, voted (against Regulation IS 2 (c),not to be accepted. [34] The State President/Mrs, Tanya Cameron, informed the Plaintiff in a letter dated the 9th. September 2016, signed against Rides and Regulations, by Mrs. Ruth Shanks, as former State President, as World President of the Associated Country Women of the World, chaired the Special Meeting on the 3 rd. August 2015, at the Macquarie Group Council, .Informing, the Branch, Group and State, to investigate and resolve the Plaintiffs concerns/complaints. On the 25th. November 2016, the Community Justice Department of NSW, wrote to the Plaintiff, who was abiding by the Resolution, for Independent Mediation -by Dept. of Fair Trade of NSW, that Mrs. Tanya Cameron was willing to meet with the Plaintiff, who would first have to e-mail to her[Cameron] what the concerns/complaints were, as she did not know. In the letter of the 11th, and 17th. March 2016, Mrs. Tanya Cameron says, that all the concerns/ complaints of the Plaintiff's, were investigated, the ones she knew nothing about."
4. As the allegations in [33] and [34] do not amount to imputations, I do not propose to deal with them as such. They appear to amount to the plaintiff's version of the narrative, which was addressed in her evidence in any event. My findings of fact relevant to these allegations are set out in the narrative above.
5. I turn now to address the imputations set out in the above table. The first step is that the plaintiff must satisfy the Court, on the balance of probabilities, that the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would understand the matter to have the meaning articulated in the pleaded imputations. The plaintiff bears the onus of proof. It is well established that each imputation relied on by the plaintiff has to be considered in the context of the entire matter complained of: Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632 at 646 (Aickin J); [1979] HCA 3.
6. The second step is to determine, in respect of any imputation found to have been carried, whether the imputation is defamatory. An imputation is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the minds of "right thinking ordinary members of the community": Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 at 505-506 (Brennan J); [1982] HCA 4.
7. I am satisfied that imputation a. was carried as it corresponds with the combined effect of the findings made in the letter of 1 April 2016. Imputations b, c and d. were carried by the first paragraph of the letter of 1 April 2016. Imputation e. was carried by paragraph 1(e) of the letter of 17 March 2016.
8. Imputation f. does not make sense and is not carried. However, as the defendant accepted, its essence, that the plaintiff falsely claimed that she had been maliciously defamed, was carried by paragraph 1(f) of the letter of 17 March 2016. In these circumstances, and having regard to the defendant's attitude to the imputation as drafted, I shall treat imputation f. as if it alleged an imputation in the following terms: "that the plaintiff falsely claimed that she had been maliciously defamed".
9. Imputation g. was carried by the particulars in paragraph 2 of the letter of 17 March 2016 and is limited to those particulars. Imputations h., i. and j. (which do not differ in substance) were carried by the particulars in paragraph 3 of the letter of 17 March 2016 and are limited to those particulars. The sting of each of imputations h., i. and j. was that the plaintiff accused members of the CWA of bullying and unacceptable behaviour towards her.
10. The sting of imputations k., l., m. and n. (which do not differ in substance) was carried by paragraph 4 of the letter of 17 March 2016 but the details about the dates and words were not carried. The sting of each was that the plaintiff inserted insulting and defamatory comments about public figures in CWA documents.
11. Imputation o. does not make sense and was not carried. However, the defendant accepted in its submissions that the imputation which was carried by paragraph 5 of the letter of 17 March 2016 was that the plaintiff resisted and derailed attempts to assist her with issues she had raised and then she refused to accept the findings of the investigations. In these circumstances, and having regard to the defendant's attitude to the imputation as drafted, I shall treat imputation o. as if it alleged an imputation in the following terms: "that the plaintiff resisted and derailed attempts to assist her with issues she had raised and then she refused to accept the findings of the investigations."
12. I accept that imputation p. was carried by paragraph 5 of the letter of 17 March 2016 but only in the context of the plaintiff's refusal to accept findings of investigations that arose from her complaints.
13. Imputation q. was carried by paragraph 6 of the letter of 17 March 2016. Imputation r. does not make sense but, to the extent that some meaning can be discerned, it does not differ in substance from imputation p. as it contains the same sting.
14. Imputation s. was neither carried nor defamatory. Although paragraph 7 of the 17 March 2016 letter asserted that the plaintiff was instructed to keep matters confidential, this does not correspond with imputation s. Imputation t. was not carried as the matter complained of does not refer to an agreement that matters be kept confidential as opposed to an instruction that they be kept confidential.
15. Imputations u., v., w., and x. were not carried.
16. The imputations which I have found carried and defamatory are a., b., c., d., e., f. (as amended), g., h., i., j., k., l., m., n., o. (as amended), p. and q.
17. It is accordingly necessary to address the defences raised by the CWA.

The defence of common law qualified privilege

1. The defence of common law qualified privilege protects communications between persons that arise from a common duty or interest: Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Limited (2004) 218 CLR 366; [2004] HCA 5 at [9]-[10] (Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ); [136]-[137] (Gummow J) and at [53] per McHugh J (dissenting). It is a defence which is founded on public utility. The rationale for the defence of qualified privilege appears from the oft-cited passage from Parke B's judgment in Toogood v Spyring (1834) 149 ER 1044 at 1050, (approved by the majority in Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Limited at [9]): "If fairly warranted by any reasonable occasion or exigency, and honestly made, such communications are protected for the common convenience and welfare of society… in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [the publisher's] own affairs in matters where his interest is concerned."
2. The defence of qualified privilege has a particular relevance to relationships between members of associations in the handling of grievances. In Brown on Defamation (Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States) (formerly The Law of Defamation in Canada)(2nd ed 1994, Carswell) at 13-275-13-276, the principles relating to grievance proceedings were summarised as follows at [13.6(3)(d)(v)(C)] of the loose-leaf edition (2010): "Generally speaking, where an absolute privilege is not conferred, committees charged with the duly of acting upon complaints against a member of the profession enjoy a qualified privilege in carrying out their activities. Where steps are taken to expel a member, other members of the association may be given a copy of the resolution and the reasons which support it. The members of a professional body or association are also protected by at least a qualified privilege in forwarding complaints to appropriate disciplinary bodies regarding misconduct on the part of one of their colleagues. Thus, where a Realty Board provides for written complaints by members against one of their associates for misrepresentation and subterfuge in a transaction, their complaints are protected by a qualified privilege." [Footnotes omitted.]
3. The matter complained of, the April Letter, was sent only to delegates who were entitled to vote on the appeal lodged by the plaintiff pursuant to reg 15(6) of the CWA Constitution. It was necessary that such persons be apprised of the matters germane to the question whether to confirm the resolution of the State Executive Committee to expel the plaintiff from the CWA. The documents which comprised the matter complained of fell into the following three categories: 1. Material that was before the State Executive when it passed the resolution to expel the plaintiff (the letters to the plaintiff dated 11 March 2016 and 17 March 2016); 2. Material that was procedurally required for the purposes of the plaintiff's appeal (the covering letter dated 13 April 2016, the notice of meeting and the plaintiff's letter of 5 April 2016 giving notice of her intention to appeal); and 3. Documents that evidenced the decision under appeal (the minutes of the meeting of 1 April 2016) and the reasons for the decision (contained in the letter to the plaintiff dated 1 April 2016).
4. Each of the documents in the three categories was required to be brought to the attention of those entitled to vote in order as a matter of procedural fairness. The purpose of the provision of the documents was, evidently, to implement the appeal process which the plaintiff had set in train by exercising her right of appeal under reg 15(6) of the CWA Constitution. Each of the delegates had a common duty to consider the documents before determining how she was to vote on the appeal and an interest in receiving them by reason of the person's position as delegate. The publication to the delegates was required by, and did not go beyond, the exigencies of the occasion. To the extent to which others may have been privy to the matter complained of (and there is no evidence of this), this would amount to incidental publication, which would have the same protection as publication of the April Letter to the delegates.
5. The authorities are replete with instances where the common law defence of qualified privilege has been found to protect publication of defamatory material within the confines of a club or association. For example, in Khan v O'Dea [1985] Hong Kong L.R. 237 (H.C.), Hunter J considered the defence of qualified privilege at general meetings of a club and said: "[I]t is, I think, plain that a common interest exists between members of a club in relation to matters concerning that club and its membership. Within the committee the committee members and in general meeting the club members have, in my judgment, a duty and an interest to speak frankly, and to hear others speaking frankly. So in relation to defamatory matters published only to the committee and its members, a defence of qualified privilege plainly arises."
6. To borrow the language from Toogood v Spyring, I am satisfied that the CWA's publication of the April Letter was fairly warranted by its duty to decide the plaintiff's appeal in the conduct of the CWA's own affairs in controlling its membership following complaints having been made by other members. The matter complained of was published precisely for the purpose for which the protection of qualified privilege is granted.
7. As appears from the passage from Toogood v Spyring the publication must also have been "honestly made". There is a presumption of honesty, or proper purpose, as a result of which the plaintiff bears the onus of proof of malice, which, in this context, means improper motive: Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 57 at [96]-[97] (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
8. The relevant principles relating to malice were articulated in Roberts v Bass at [76] (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ): "But, leaving aside the special case of knowledge of falsity, mere proof of the defendant's ill-will, prejudice, bias, recklessness, lack of belief in truth or improper motive is not sufficient to establish malice. The evidence or the publication must also show some ground for concluding that the ill-will, lack of belief in the truth of the publication, recklessness, bias, prejudice or other motive existed on the privileged occasion and actuated the publication. . . That is because qualified privilege is, and can only be, destroyed by the existence of an improper motive that actuates the publication."
9. The person who decided to publish the April Letter was its author, Mrs Tanya Cameron. Accordingly, to prove malice, the plaintiff must prove that Mrs Tanya Cameron had a predominantly improper motive in publishing the April Letter. The plaintiff's written submissions contain several allegations of malice. However none of these allegations (for which no proper basis has been established) are germane to the defence of qualified privilege since the underlying conduct alleged is distinct from the publication of the matter complained of.
10. In her reply the plaintiff alleged: "[T]he action taken by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff was actuated by malice. The time frame did not comply with the State Statute or the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005) [thereafter set out]".
11. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) have no application to an appeal under reg 15(6) of the CWA Constitution. The Country Women's Association of New South Wales Incorporation Act does not contain any time frame of present relevance. In so far as the allegation is based on the proposition that a failure to comply with applicable time frames could amount to malice in the present case, I reject it. In any event, the plaintiff has not established any failure on the part of the CWA to comply with its Constitution and, in particular, with reg 15.
12. The CWA Executive Committee received the complaints (referred to above) seeking to have the plaintiff expelled from the CWA. On 11 March 2016 the plaintiff was given notice of these complaints in accordance with reg 15(2)(a) and the plaintiff replied to that notice on 12 March 2016. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide submissions in response to the complaints by 4pm on 29 March 2016, a period of 18 days after the notice on 11 March 2016, which was longer than the 14 day period under reg 15(2)(b).
13. On 1 April 2016, the CWA Executive Committee resolved to expel the plaintiff under reg 15(3). It notified the plaintiff of her appeal rights on the same day. The plaintiff lodged her appeal on 5 April 2016. In accordance with reg 15(6)(iv), the CWA convened a general meeting on 3 May 2016, within 28 days of the lodgment of the appeal. The plaintiff was given notice of that meeting and her rights to be heard on 13 April 2016. At the general meeting, the expulsion of the plaintiff was confirmed.
14. Although the defendant, by reason of the presumption, was not obliged to prove proper purpose, I am satisfied that the April Letter was published for proper purposes. As referred to above, its publication was necessitated by the plaintiff's appeal which required the delegates to be privy to the material before a vote was taken. I accept the evidence of Mrs Tanya Cameron that she considered all of the material and believed that she was proceeding in accordance with the regulations (and I have found she was). The CWA sought legal advice on compliance with the Constitution and followed that advice. The CWA accorded procedural fairness to the plaintiff by giving her the opportunity to respond orally and in writing to the allegations made against her.
15. For these reasons I am satisfied that the publication of the matter complained was protected by common law qualified privilege.
16. This is sufficient to determine the defamation proceedings. There will, accordingly, be judgment in favour of the defendant in those proceedings. However, as the trial judge, I am obliged to determine all relevant factual and legal issues: Wolfenden v International Theme Park Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 78 at [3]-[6] (Giles JA, Hodgson JA and Windeyer J agreeing). Accordingly, it is necessary for me to consider all the other defences raised and to assess damages.

The statutory defence of qualified privilege pursuant to s 30 of the Defamation Act

1. Section 30 of the Act relevantly provides: "Defence of qualified privilege for provision of certain information (1) There is a defence of qualified privilege for the publication of defamatory matter to a person (the recipient) if the defendant proves that: (a) the recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject, and (b) the matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving to the recipient information on that subject, and (c) the conduct of the defendant in publishing that matter is reasonable in the circumstances. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a recipient has an apparent interest in having information on some subject if, and only if, at the time of the publication in question, the defendant believes on reasonable grounds that the recipient has that interest. (3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the conduct of the defendant in publishing matter about a person is reasonable in the circumstances, a court may take into account: (a) the extent to which the matter published is of public interest, and (b) the extent to which the matter published relates to the performance of the public functions or activities of the person, and (c) the seriousness of any defamatory imputation carried by the matter published, and (d) the extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions, allegations and proven facts, and (e) whether it was in the public interest in the circumstances for the matter published to be published expeditiously, and (f) the nature of the business environment in which the defendant operates, and (g) the sources of the information in the matter published and the integrity of those sources, and (h) whether the matter published contained the substance of the person's side of the story and, if not, whether a reasonable attempt was made by the defendant to obtain and publish a response from the person, and (i) any other steps taken to verify the information in the matter published, and (j) any other circumstances that the court considers relevant. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, a defence of qualified privilege under subsection (1) is defeated if the plaintiff proves that the publication of the defamatory matter was actuated by malice. . . ."
2. Plainly, the delegates had an actual interest in the content of the April Letter given the imminent vote on whether to confirm the plaintiff's expulsion. The April Letter was published to each delegate in the course of giving each delegate information on the subject of the matter for resolution.
3. The principal issue relevant to the defence of statutory qualified privilege in the present case is whether the defendant's conduct in publishing the matter complained of was reasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account everything it knew and everything it believed.
4. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable in that it refused to consider material that had been provided after the deadline of 4pm on 29 March 2016. She relied on the circumstance that she was required to attend the internment of her eldest sister in Newcastle on 30 March 2016 and that an extension ought to have been granted to allow her at least 14 days after receipt of the letter of particulars on 17 March 2016. I regard these matters as irrelevant to the question of reasonableness in so far as it relates to the defence of statutory qualified privilege. The relevant act which must be reasonable for the defence to be established is the publication of the matter complained of.
5. As referred to above in the context of the common law defence of qualified privilege, the only people to receive the Letter were those entitled to vote on the plaintiff's expulsion as a member of the CWA. I regard the publication of the matter complained of to each delegate as not only reasonable, but also required, for the reasons given above in respect of the common law defence of qualified privilege. The plaintiff has failed, for the reasons given above, to prove malice. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the statutory defence of qualified privilege under s 30 of the Act has been established.

The defence of justification (s 25 of the Defamation Act)

Legislative provisions and general principles

1. Section 25 of the Act provides: "Defence of justification It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true."
2. The task of determining whether the defendant has proved that the imputations of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true is not to be performed by too narrow a focus on the particular form in which the plaintiff has articulated the imputation. Rather, the truth or otherwise of the imputations is to be determined in context, by construing the words complained of as a whole: Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos (2001) 54 NSWLR 165; [2002] NSWCA 41 at [26] (Mason P, Wood CJ at CL agreeing).
3. I am satisfied that the defendant has established the truth of each of the imputations which I have found both to be carried and defamatory. As my reasons for this finding largely appear from the detailed narrative above as well as my findings regarding the plaintiff's credibility, it is not necessary to do more than summarise my reasons for finding that the defence of justification has been made out in respect of each such imputation.

Imputation a.

1. As to imputation a., the defendant has proved that the plaintiff persistently and wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the members of the defendant. Her conduct at meetings caused members distress and consternation. Her enquiries of banks, solicitors, public authorities and government departments affected members by association. The gratuitous insults with which she peppered the agenda and minutes she prepared and the emails she sent caused anxiety, as did the baseless complaints she made against those members with whom she dealt.

Imputations b. and c.

1. As to imputations b. and c., the defendant has proved that the plaintiff has been disrespectful to members of the defendant and derogatory to members of the Wellington branch. These imputations are, in substance, a subset of the previous one and their truth is established by much of the same evidence. The plaintiff was quick to deride other CWA members. For example, she alleged that Ms Beverley Cameron was "no clean potato"; she vilified Mrs Wynne for being a new member and preparing a treasurer's report although she was not the treasurer; and she showed a complete lack of respect for Mrs Pinkerton and her mother, whom she denigrated for not getting back to her with details of accommodation for the CWA conference to be held in Moree. She abused Mrs Norris for asking Mr King to keep cleaning the CWA hall in Wellington in January 2015 although he had resigned as at 31 December 2014. On 18 February 2015 she berated Ms Beverley Cameron in the following words: "No the blame is all yours, you were a hopeless Secretary and you are a hopeless President and Treasurer, congratulations you have a 100% failure rate."
2. The plaintiff's unreasonableness in demanding immediate responses from women who were occupying voluntary executive positions, or who were simply members of the CWA, was disrespectful. Without a shred of proper evidence she insinuated that several members, including Ms Beverley Cameron, were lying. The plaintiff's treatment of Ms Carolan and Ms Cargill was grossly disrespectful, particularly in circumstances where she knew that both women were spending considerable time (for which they were not remunerated) investigating complaints which she had made.

Imputation d.

1. As to imputation d., that the plaintiff has been discriminatory to members of the CWA, the defendant has proved that the plaintiff was wont to discriminate between members of the CWA by reference to seniority. The plaintiff's email of 17 February 2015 to Ms Beverley Cameron demonstrates the extent to which she was conscious of seniority and acted accordingly. The plaintiff also sought to justify her treatment of Mrs Wynne, following her enquiry about the mental health event, by reference to Mrs Wynne's status as a mere member, and a new one at that. The CWA Constitution draws a distinction between members and life members in that the latter are exempt from certain fees but it provides no warrant for treating members differently on the grounds of seniority. I understood Ms Cargill's rejection of the notion of "senior" vice-president in the passage from her cross-examination extracted above as conveying that such considerations of seniority were inappropriate in the context of the CWA and inconsistent with its aims. The defendant has proved that imputation d. was true.

Imputation e.

1. The defendant has also proved the truth of imputation e. Indeed, its truth can almost be proved by its terms in the context of the Wellington branch. The email was sent on 13 February 2015 to Mrs Wynne, who was then a member, but not an office bearer, of the Wellington branch. The plaintiff knew, from previous emails, that Mrs Wynne was interested in the mental health event and that, on 12 February 2015, Mrs Wynne had been volunteering at Bloomfield in Orange, which was a distance of over 100kms from Wellington. Mrs Wynne had no obligation to respond to the plaintiff's email at all, except as a matter of courtesy. The tone of the plaintiff's emails was such as to deter a response. The plaintiff's rebuke to Mrs Wynne was, in this context, both hostile and bullying.

Imputation f. (as modified)

1. The substance of imputation f. (as referred to above) is that the plaintiff falsely claimed that she had been maliciously defamed. As appears from the narrative set out above, the minutes of the meeting on 13 May 2015 included, incorrectly, a reference to the plaintiff having asked to be reimbursed $102 for petty cash. The plaintiff's response was to allege that she had been accused of fraud. She had made similar accusations to Mrs Carolan in emails in February 2015, which led to Mrs Carolan inviting the Macquarie Group treasurer to attend the meeting on 11 March 2015. The error in the minutes was plainly an arithmetical error and ought to have been understood as such by the plaintiff. The plaintiff falsely alleged that the mistake amounted to an allegation of fraud (which would itself have constituted malicious defamation in the circumstances). The defendant has established the truth of imputation f.

Imputation g.

1. As to imputation g., that the plaintiff defamed Wellington branch members within the local community, the evidence is replete with examples of the plaintiff defaming members of the Wellington branch to others, including to members of the Macquarie Group of the CWA, such as Mrs Carolan, who were not members of the Wellington branch but who, being in the same area, were within the local community. The plaintiff's email of 15 September 2015, which was sent to over 100 people, disparaged several members of the Wellington branch, including Mrs Wynne, Ms Beverley Cameron and Mrs Norris. I infer that at least some of the persons who received the email belonged to the local community. I am satisfied that the defendant has proved that imputation g. is true.

Imputations h., i. and j.

1. Imputations h., i. and j. can be considered together as they do not differ in substance. There are several examples in the narrative set out above of the plaintiff accusing others of bullying her.
2. For example in her email to Mrs Carolan sent on 14 February 2015 at 4.08 pm the plaintiff accused Ms Beverley Cameron and Mrs Wynne (both members of the Wellington branch) of bullying her. The plaintiff's email to Ms Deacon sent on 27 May 2015 at 14.33pm was entitled "Fraud and Bullying" and referred to the conduct of Mrs Wynne and Ms Beverley Cameron in preparing minutes which contained the arithmetical error regarding petty cash. The victims of her allegations were made aware of her characterisation of them when Ms Deacon forwarded the email to Mrs Norris, Mrs Wynne, Ms Beverley Cameron (who were the then current Wellington branch office bearers), Ms Cargill, Mrs Carolan and Mrs Tanya Cameron. On 19 July 2015 the plaintiff sent a letter of complaint to Mrs Carolan, alleging bullying by the Wellington branch.
3. In her email to Mrs Tanya Cameron sent on 4 March 2015 the plaintiff complained that Mrs Blatch's phone call (raising the plaintiff's mental health) "could only be described as, bullying and defamatory". Mrs Blatch was then secretary of the Macquarie Group. In the plaintiff's email of 15 September 2015, she made accusations against the State President, State Treasurer (then State Vice President), Group President and Group Secretary.
4. The defendant has established the truth of imputations h., i. and j.

Imputations k., l., m. and n.

1. The sting of each of imputations k., l., m. and n. (which do not differ in substance) is that the plaintiff inserted insulting and defamatory comments about public figures in CWA documents. The narrative set out above contains several instances of this. The following examples suffice to provide reasons for my conclusion that the defendant has proved the truth of the common sting of these imputations. The minutes were public documents. Although the agendas, unlike the minutes, were not pasted into the public minute book, which could be inspected by persons who were not branch members, as well as by branch members, copies of the agenda were handed out to members at the beginning of the branch meeting and could be taken home by them. The agendas could, accordingly, be read by others although they were not strictly speaking public documents.
2. In the agenda for the meeting on 11 November 2014, the plaintiff included insulting and defamatory comments about Mr Tolhurst, the general manager of Wellington Council, in connection with the garden beds which she alleged were "ridiculous" and asserted that there had been no consultation before their construction. The minutes for the meeting on 11 November 2014 also included reference to Mr Tolhurst not having consulted the Wellington branch, the Museum or the Catholic Church before the garden beds were constructed.
3. In both the agenda and the minutes for the meeting on 11 February 2015, the plaintiff included matters critical of Mr Grant, the State Member of Parliament for the area. She also insinuated that Mr Tolhurst had lied to her at the meeting on 13 November 2014 when he told her that it was the Roads and Maritime Services which had provided the money for the garden beds.

Imputation o. (modified)

1. As referred to above, the sting of pleaded imputation o. is that that the plaintiff resisted and derailed attempts to assist her with issues she had raised and then refused to accept the findings of the investigations. The truth of this imputation has been amply proved by the evidence of Ms Cargill, who was appointed to investigate the Wellington branch following the complaints which the plaintiff had made against Mrs Carolan and Mrs Blatch. The meticulous work which Ms Cargill carried out established that, although there had been some minor errors in some respects, there was nothing which materially affected the finances of the branch. Further, Ms Cargill investigated the grant of $4,105 to ascertain how each dollar that had been spent was spent and what sum from the grant money remained. Although no acquittal was required by the Department of Social Services, the Wellington branch returned the unused part of the grant and send photographs of the items bought to the Department to establish that the monies had been spent as accounted for. Notwithstanding the thorough investigation and the subsequent acquittal, the plaintiff continued to assert that there was wrongdoing, including fraud, associated with the grant.

Imputation p.

1. As referred to above, the substance of imputation p. is limited by the context and is accordingly confined to the plaintiff's refusal to accept findings of investigations that arose from her complaints. The defendant has established the truth of this imputation by various instances referred to in the narrative above, including the evidence referred to with respect to imputation o. where the plaintiff refused to accept that there was no impropriety associated with the grant, about which she had made a complaint.
2. The plaintiff's complaint about the reckoning of petty cash is another example. Even after Ms Cargill had accounted for all aspects of the plaintiff's complaint about Mrs Carolan's handling of issues relating to petty cash, she refused to resile from making similar allegations in further correspondence.

Imputation q.

1. Imputation q. is that the plaintiff failed to abide by a resolution of the August 2015 Group Council, of the Macquarie Group of the defendant, causing the independent mediation to be derailed by the plaintiff. The evidence establishes that after Ms Saunders had spoken to the plaintiff about the proposed mediation on the basis that the conversation would be kept confidential, she learned that the plaintiff had divulged the contents of the conversation to others, thereby derailing the mediation process which had been initiated to deal with the issues she had raised. This led Ms Saunders to advise the CWA that mediation would be fruitless.
2. The plaintiff sought to justify her actions by alleging that Ms Saunders was, by reason of her contract to provide workshop services to the CWA, not independent as required by the resolution made on 3 August 2015. I do not regard the contract between Natalie Bramble Management and the CWA as having the consequence that Ms Saunders was not independent of the CWA since she was neither a member nor an employee of the CWA. Further, the time spent in providing annual workshops was relatively small and she could not, accordingly, be said to have been financially dependent on work from the CWA to any material degree. It is of significance that the plaintiff did not refuse to speak with Ms Saunders on the ground that she was not independent. Rather the plaintiff took up about an hour of Ms Saunders' time and then divulged the contents of the conversation to third parties, thereby derailing the mediation. I am satisfied that the defendant has proved the truth of this imputation.

Contextual truth (s 26 of the Act)

1. Section 26 of the Act provides: "Defence of contextual truth It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that: (a) the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, one or more other imputations (contextual imputations) that are substantially true, and (b) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations."
2. In the present case, the defence of contextual truth does not arise as I have found that the defence of justification has been made out in respect of all the imputations alleged by the plaintiff which I have found to be carried and defamatory. It is therefore not possible to undertake a comparison between those of the plaintiff's imputations which have not been found to be true (since there is none) and the contextual imputation alleged by the defendant. However, I am in a position to make some relevant findings concerning the defence.
3. By reason of the wording of s 26(a) of the Act, the contextual imputation must differ in substance from the plaintiff's imputations. A general imputation can qualify as a contextual imputation where the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff are specific: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Zeccola (2015) 91 NSWLR 341; [2015] NSWCA 329 at [83] (McColl JA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing).
4. The CWA pleaded the following contextual imputation: "The plaintiff had so conducted herself as a member of the CWA as to warrant her being expelled from the CWA."
5. The grounds for complaint (which could lead to expulsion) were provided for in reg 15(1). The point of the April Letter was to canvas the plaintiff's conduct as a whole which warranted her expulsion. I accept the defendant's submission that the contextual imputation, as a general allegation about the plaintiff's conduct as a whole, arises "in addition to" the specific imputations pleaded by the plaintiff. The contextual imputation is plainly defamatory.
6. The narrative set out above and the consideration of the defence of justification are sufficient to explain why I am satisfied that the defendant has proved the truth of the contextual imputation alleged. By the time of her expulsion in May 2016, the plaintiff's continued membership was very deleterious to the CWA. The morale and goodwill of its members was jeopardised by the plaintiff's conduct. The plaintiff's continued membership was also inconsistent with the aims and methods of the CWA. The evidence established that the plaintiff's conduct disturbed those who encountered her and made members of the executives of the Wellington branch fearful of taking responsibility lest they be sued by her. Mrs Wynne's reluctance to sign the accounts of the Wellington branch for the year ended 30 September 2015 was an example of this. The trouble the plaintiff caused by her aggressive and inappropriate conduct and her propensity to allege criminal conduct without foundation, took up the time, energy and goodwill of others within the CWA, who expended considerable time (for which they were not paid) in trying to address her complaints and rectify alleged irregularities.
7. The CWA's Constitution provided that any woman living in New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory could become a full member of CWA (NSW). The evidence indicated that, but for the plaintiff's conduct, the CWA was an inclusive organisation to which women of different ages, background and experience, particularly those living in rural areas, were attracted. Its members appeared to interact in a generally courteous manner.

Assessment of damages

1. Section 34 of the Act provides: "In determining the amount of damages to be awarded in any defamation proceedings, the court is to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the applicant and the amount of damages awarded."
2. The three purposes of the award of damages for defamation are consolation for hurt feelings; recompense for damage to reputation; and vindication of the plaintiff's reputation: Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 60-61 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ); [1993] HCA 31. Section 35 of the Act provides for a cap of $250,000 for non-economic loss. The maximum damages amount has been increased, from 1 July 2017, to the sum of $389,500 (declaration published in the NSW Government Gazette No 56, 26 May 2017, at 1782).
3. The defendant is entitled to rely in mitigation of damages on any evidence that was primarily directed to the plea of justification, even if, in some respects, the plea of justification fails: Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 116 at 120A-E per Neill LJ. Matters relied upon in mitigation must fall within the same "sector" of the plaintiff's reputation as the imputations found to have been defamatory: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430; [2001] NSWCA 322 at [16]-[30] (Ipp AJA, Beazley JA agreeing).
4. In the present case, I have found that the defendant has proved the defence of justification in respect of all of the plaintiff's imputations and has also proved the truth of its contextual imputation. It follows that damages can be assessed, if at all, only on a hypothetical basis. I have encountered such significant difficulty in formulating the appropriate hypothesis on which to assess the damages that I am not persuaded that I am required to do so in the present case.
5. If I were to assess damages on the hypothetical basis that the defendant has not proved the truth of any of the plaintiff's imputations but has proved the truth of the contextual imputation, there would an unreality about the hypothesis since the contextual imputation (which is general) covers the field in which the plaintiff's specific imputations are to be found. If, on the other hand, I were to assess damages on the basis that none of the imputations (whether the plaintiff's or the defendant's) had been established to be true, it would be nigh impossible to reconcile this hypothesis with the principle referred to above that the evidence led with respect to the truth of imputations that can be taken into account in mitigation of damages.
6. The requirement that a trial judge determine all issues, even hypothetical ones, is not absolute. The question was considered by McCallum J in Dansar Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2013] NSWSC 17; (2013) 196 LGERA 39; (the question did not arise on the appeal, (2014) 89 NSWLR 1; [2014] NSWCA 364, which was dismissed). Her Honour said at [98]: "[I]n some instances, the determination of issues of fact rendered hypothetical by the judge's conclusion as to another issue will prove to be a barren undertaking, the pursuit of which will be inimical to the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. In Kelman v Mutton; Howard Haulage Pty Ltd v Mutton [2007] NSWSC 13 at [66], Sully J saw 'no sense' in a trial judge's proceeding to quantify the apportionment of liability between cross-claimant and cross-defendant after rejecting the premise of the cross-claim. To do so would require the judge to nominate hypothetical circumstances that justified the apportionment reached, contrary to the earlier finding."
7. Although the defendant's submissions did not specifically address this conundrum, the defendant urged me to assess damages not only on the basis of my obligation as trial judge to decide all issues, including hypothetical ones, but also because it submitted that the assessment of damages had utility in the event of an appeal since if the damages were assessed at less than $100,000, leave would be required.
8. In light of the issues I have raised and the arbitrariness of adopting any of the assumptions identified above, I decline to assess damages. I consider, however, that the findings of fact I have made above and the further findings set out below, are sufficient such that, if damages are ever required to be assessed, the assessment can be made under s 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) without any further evidence being adduced.
9. I consider the relevant "sector", being that part of the plaintiff's reputation capable of being harmed by the matter complained of, to be her reputation as a citizen of New South Wales.
10. The plaintiff's conduct within the local community of Wellington, its surrounding area and to persons within the wider area of New South Wales, as established by the evidence, showed her to be belligerent, rude and overbearing. She caused significant upset to many women at branch, group and State level by making unjustified allegations of serious misconduct or criminal conduct. From the time her conduct towards the Travelodge at Blacktown was observed with dismay in May 2012, it became known by members of the CWA, including those outside the Macquarie group, that she was both difficult and discourteous. Those impressions can only have been reinforced by her subsequent conduct. The evidence revealed that the plaintiff's conduct, the reason for it and the distress and anxiety it caused, were the subject of much discussion both at branch, group and State level. In these circumstances, the April Letter can have had little impact on the view of the plaintiff held by those who were already acquainted with her and familiar with her way of dealing with others. The plaintiff did not call any evidence of her reputation in the community other than her own evidence, which, for reasons given above, I do not accept.
11. As for the submission that the plaintiff's relationship with Mr Collier ultimately came to an end as a result of the matter complained of, I am not satisfied that this was the case. The plaintiff and Mr Collier were divorced decades ago and yet have continued to have an association of sorts. There may be several causes for their separation in March 2017. As referred to above, their recent co-operation extended to Mr Collier's familiarising himself with the documents associated with these proceedings and staying at her residence in Wellington to look after the property and the dogs while she was in Sydney conducting the litigation. For reasons given above, I did not find Mr Collier to be a particularly credible witness. I am not satisfied that the publication of the matter complained of caused any permanent or substantial rift in their relationship.
12. I am not satisfied that the publication of the matter complained of caused any substantial hurt to the plaintiff's feelings in that she appears to have an unshakeable belief in both the righteousness of her own conduct and the ineptitude or wrongdoing of others. This belief does not appear to have been affected at all by the publication of the matter complained of. While her expulsion from the CWA, of itself, may have caused her distress, this is to be distinguished from the publication of the matter complained of.
13. In these circumstances I am not prepared to conclude that an award of more than nominal damages would have been justified although, for the reasons given above, I am unable to formulate a realistic assumption as to what imputations ought be taken into account in that assessment.

The relief claimed

1. In her summons filed on 8 March 2017 the plaintiff claimed the following: "1. An Order of the Court, that the removal of the Plaintiff from the position of Branch Secretary at Wellington was illegal on the 18th. February 2015. 2. An Order of the Court that the election of Officer's [sic] at Wellington Branch on the 11th. March 2015 was illegal. 3. An Order of the Court, that the Resolution passed on the 3rd. August 2015, for Mediation, was cancelled as a result of the Defendant's illegal actions. 4. An Order of the Court for a Forensic Audit into the Wellington Branch Accounts for the past 7 years to be conducted. 5. Any breaches of any Statutes by the Defendant be brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions and/ or Tribunals. 6. An Order of the Court for any pecuniary award, to be granted to the Plaintiff, as a Consequence of the Defendant's breach of any Statutes or Legislation."
2. On 12 May 2017 the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in the Equity proceedings in which she restated her claims for relief in the summons (without amendment) and set out the allegations on which she relied for her claims for relief.

General principles

1. The principal objection to this Court entertaining the plaintiff's claims for relief is that courts will not generally intervene in the affairs of voluntary associations, unincorporated or incorporated: Re NSW Bar Association [2014] NSWSC 1695; (2014) 315 ALR 146 at [24] (Brereton J). The principle is well-established: Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358. This general principle is subject to the exception that a court may intervene where the plaintiff establishes either interference with his or her property rights or interests or breach of contract: Re NSW Bar Association at [24]. Mere reputational impact, which is what is alleged here, is not sufficient to attract the court's intervention: Re NSW Bar Association at [66].
2. Although the court may have jurisdiction to address a procedural irregularity which has occasioned prejudice to the plaintiff as a matter of due process, this applies only to relevant resolutions of the CWA and not to its conduct generally: In the matter of Pioneer Energy Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 425 at [12] and [15] per Black J and Campbell v Crawford (1985) 12 FCR 317 at 341-342 (Wilcox J). However, although prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the summons, are not expressed in terms of an application for declaratory relief, they could be read as a claim for such relief. This Court's wide power to grant declaratory relief pursuant to s 75 of the Supreme Court Act enables me to consider whether the plaintiff has established that the relief claimed ought be granted: see, for example, Rose v Boxing NSW Inc [2007] NSWSC 20 at [55]-[60] (Brereton J). In these circumstances, I propose to address the plaintiff's claims for relief in turn.

Prayer 1 of the summons: the alleged illegality of the removal of the plaintiff from her position as secretary of the Wellington branch on 18 February 2015

1. The plaintiff submitted that she was illegally removed from her position as secretary of the Wellington branch on 18 February 2015. The difficulty with that submission is that the evidence established that on 18 February 2015 the plaintiff was not removed from her position but was asked to cease and desist from her duties until the next branch meeting on 11 March 2015 so that all issues with the branch including the plaintiff's complaints could be discussed. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief in prayer 1 of the summons has not been made out since its factual premise has been proved to be incorrect.

Prayer 2 of the summons: the alleged illegality of the election of office bearers at the Wellington branch on 11 March 2015

1. The plaintiff submitted that the election of office bearers at the Wellington branch on 11 March 2015 was illegal. The evidence does not reveal any proper basis for this submission. The evidence established that at the Wellington branch meeting on 11 March 2015, the members passed a resolution by majority (the plaintiff's vote being the only one against the motion) that the positions of all office bearers be vacated, following which elections for new office bearers were held. Reg 80 of the CWA Constitution provides that all branches shall manage their own affairs within the aims and subject to the CWA Constitution. The plaintiff has raised no arguable basis on which it could be concluded that the resolution to vacate the positions of all office bearers was not properly passed. Accordingly, no factual basis has been established for her claim for declaratory relief in prayer 2 of the summons.

Prayer 3: the allegation that the defendant unlawfully cancelled the mediation the subject of the resolution passed on 3 August 2015

1. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant unlawfully cancelled the resolution for mediation which had been passed on 3 August 2015. The relevant resolutions passed on 3 August 2015 are set out above. A mediator, Ms Saunders, was appointed by Mrs Shanks pursuant to the resolution. The mediation process commenced. The mediator advised, after having spoken with the plaintiff and others, that mediation would be futile, having regard to the plaintiff's attitude. In those circumstances it was decided that the mediation not be proceeded with. Mediation is a process which requires co-operation and confidentiality. Where these elements are absent, mediation is inevitably unsuccessful. The passage of the resolutions on 3 August 2015 did not require the defendant to participate in a solemn farce of a mediation in circumstances where the mediator it had appointed had advised that it would be futile. The plaintiff has failed to make out any factual basis to support her claim for declaratory relief in prayer 3 of the summons.

Prayer 4: the plaintiff's claim for a "forensic audit" to be conducted of the accounts of the Wellington branch

1. No juridical basis for the plaintiff's claim for a forensic audit of the accounts of the Wellington branch has been identified. The evidence established that the accounts for the financial year ended 30 September 2015 were signed by Ms Cargill, who was then the Honorary Secretary of CWA (NSW). They were also audited by Crowe Horwath, chartered accountants, who reported, as referred to above, that they "found no issues of serious concern". Even if I were persuaded that I had the power to order the accounts to be audited (and I am not), I do not discern any proper basis on which the order ought be made in the present case.

Prayer 5: the plaintiff's claim that the court refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions or relevant tribunals

1. The plaintiff requests that the court refer the alleged illegality to the relevant authorities. Courts have a discretion to refer apparent illegality to the relevant authorities, including the Director of Public Prosecutions. The evidence does not establish any illegality, much less any that would warrant such referral. Accordingly, the plaintiff's request (which does not amount to a claim for relief) is declined.

Prayer 6: the plaintiff's claim for a pecuniary award as a consequence of the defendant's alleged breach of statute

1. The plaintiff has not pleaded any legal, equitable or factual basis for this claim for relief. There is no relevant justiciable relationship between the plaintiff and the CWA such as would justify any pecuniary award. Moreover, as referred to above, no illegality or other breach of statute has been established.
2. For the reasons set out above the plaintiff's claim in the Equity proceedings will be dismissed.

Costs

1. In the ordinary course, costs would follow the event. As the defendant has been wholly successful, the plaintiff would ordinarily be ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. However, the defendant has asked for costs to be reserved.

Orders

1. For the reasons set out above I make the following orders: In proceedings 2016/122571: 1. Order judgment for the defendant. 2. Reserve costs. 3. Direct that any application for costs, together with any evidence in support, be delivered to my Associate in writing within 7 days hereof, that any response be delivered to my Associate within a further 7 days, and that any reply be delivered to my Associate within a further 5 days. In proceedings 2017/72463: (1) Dismiss the summons. (2) Reserve costs. (3) Direct that any application for costs, together with any evidence in support, be delivered to my Associate in writing within 7 days hereof, that any response be delivered to my Associate within a further 7 days, and that any reply be delivered to my Associate within a further 5 days.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 20 November 2017