Ivory v Gawley [2026] FCA 165

1. By an originating application filed on 10 November 2023, the applicant, Ms Sheree Ivory, sought redress, including an award of general damages and aggravated damages, for the damage to her reputation caused by Facebook posts made by Mr Michael Gawley, the respondent, which alleged, inter alia, serious criminal activity. A similar application was filed on the same day seeking the same redress from Ms Susan Howard, who had also made posts on Facebook alleging, inter alia, Ms Ivory's involvement in the same serious criminal activity.
2. Ms Ivory is a member of the Central Queensland Drag Racing Association Inc and was the administrator of a Facebook group called "Friends of Benaraby Dragway" (Facebook Group). As at 9 November 2023, the Facebook Group had 1757 members. Mr Gawley was the President of the Association and had access to the Benaraby Dragway Website. He was also the user and operator of a Facebook account called "Michael Hunt". As at 26 October 2023, Michael Hunt had 80 followers and approximately 40 "friends".
3. Although Mr Gawley had represented himself during the proceedings, on 1 October 2025, by email to the Registry, Mr Gawley informed the Court that he was unable to continue to participate in the matter as he was no longer employed, did not have a computer, electricity, wifi, or any other means of internet service "other than this old phone", which "may soon be disconnected for non-payment as I have no form of income". Mr Gawley said the Court "can certainly proceed however required by law, or within [its] discretion": Affidavit of Michael Finch filed on 19 January 2026, Annexure E (Finch Affidavit).
4. Mr Gawley did not appear when the matter was called on for hearing on 17 February 2026. The hearing proceeded in his absence. I was satisfied that Mr Gawley had abandoned his defence of the claim brought against him and that he therefore had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made orders entering judgment against Mr Gawley pursuant to r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). I also enjoined him from publishing any matter in any form which attributed the pleaded imputations to Ms Ivory and ordered that he remove any publications that did so. I reserved my decision on the assessment of the quantum of damages to be awarded to Ms Ivory and on the question of costs.
5. These are my reasons for the decision I have reached to order that Mr Gawley pay Ms Ivory the sum of $15,000, together with interest, and costs on the indemnity basis, to be assessed as a lump sum.

1. Ms Ivory relied on the following material:
   1. Affidavit of Mr Reginald Thornhill of 27 March 2025 (Thornhill Affidavit).
   2. Affidavit of Ms Ivory of 28 March 2025 (First Ivory Affidavit).
   3. Affidavit of Ms Penelope Ann Taylor of 28 March 2025 (Taylor Affidavit).
   4. Affidavit of Mr Dennis John Hurle of 28 March 2025 (Hurle Affidavit).
   5. Affidavit of Mr Paul Steven Welsh of 28 March 2025 (Welsh Affidavit).
   6. Finch Affidavit.
   7. Affidavit of Ms Ivory of 10 February 2026 (Second Ivory Affidavit).
   8. Written submissions of 10 February 2026.
2. Mr Gawley did not file any material for the hearing.

1. I summarised the principles relevant to the assessment of damages for defamation at [13]-[21] of my reasons in Ivory v Howard [2024] FCA 1416. There is no need to re-state them.
2. In addition to the principles referred to in those paragraphs, it is necessary to mention s 38 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) which lists the factors as to which evidence is admissible in mitigation of damages for the publication of defamatory matter. Relevantly, in this case, s 38(1)(c) and (d) permit evidence to be admitted that the plaintiff, in this case Ms Ivory, has already recovered damages for defamation in relation to any other publication of matter having the same meaning and effect as the defamatory matter or that the plaintiff has brought proceedings for defamation in relation to any other publication of matter having the same meaning and effect as the defamatory matter.
3. As I have already observed, Ms Ivory brought proceedings against Ms Howard for defamation in relation to the publication of matter having, essentially, the same meaning and effect as that published by Mr Gawley. Further, on 10 December 2024, Ms Howard was ordered to pay Ms Ivory the sum of $75,000 plus costs on the indemnity basis.
4. It is disappointing to observe that, in a matter where there was no longer any active defendant, the legal practitioner acting for Ms Ivory did not bring this section to the Court's attention, nor indeed mention that Ms Ivory had received an award of damages in respect of defamatory material arising out of what was essentially the same substratum of fact, namely a childish dispute amongst members of an unincorporated drag racing association.

1. As against Mr Gawley, Ms Ivory complained of six matters. She gives evidence of these matters in the First Ivory Affidavit and they are described in her Statement of Claim dated 10 November 2023.
2. The first matter complained of is said to have arisen on or around 25 April 2023 when Mr Gawley is said to have published certain material on the Website, to at least six individuals, and republished the material on six occasions via the Michael Hunt Facebook account. The material carried the imputations that Ms Ivory stole, was unprofessional, engaged in illegal and immoral activity, misled and deceived members of the Association, engaged in voter fraud, and is a liar.
3. The second matter complained of is said to have occurred on or about 20 February 2023 when Mr Gawley is said to have published material on Michael Hunt's Facebook page, reaching at least 36 people, and which carried the imputations that Ms Ivory was pathetic, a bully, had engaged in the offence of criminal damage to a race track, and that there is reason to believe that the poor financial state of the Association was due to Ms Ivory's engaging in illegal activities such as money laundering, drug use, and associating with outlawed motorcycle gangs. The matter contained the further imputations that Ms Ivory was knowingly concerned in theft from the Association, attempted robbery, and is a thief.
4. The third matter complained of is said to have occurred on or about 17 July 2023 when Mr Gawley is said to have published material on Michael Hunt's Facebook page, reaching at least 13 individuals, containing the imputations that Ms Ivory was attempting to destroy Benaraby Dragway and encouraging members to harass one another.
5. The fourth matter complained of is said to have occurred on or about 1 December 2022 when Mr Gawley is said to have published material on Michael Hunt's Facebook page, reaching at least 38 individuals, containing the imputations that Ms Ivory only wished to be elected to the committee of the Association so she could steal from it and she could no longer obtain any "sly deals" when she was unsuccessful in being elected.
6. The fifth matter complained of is said to have occurred on or about 28 April 2023 when Mr Gawley is said to have published material on Michael Hunt's Facebook page, reaching at least 12 individuals, containing the imputation that Ms Ivory was a drug user.
7. The sixth matter complained of is said to have occurred on or about 1 December 2022 when Mr Gawley is said to have published matter containing the imputation that Ms Ivory was mentally unstable, in that she had twice attempted suicide in recent years, and was a liar. Mr Gawley is said to have published this matter to at least seven individuals as a comment on a post of his dated 1 August 2023 and by sharing it to the Facebook page of Viv Jocumsen using the Michael Hunt Facebook account.
8. Despite purporting to do so, the Statement of Claim does not annex copies of the matters complained of and they are not otherwise in evidence. Instead, the Statement of Claim provides URL addresses which purport to link to the publications. The URL addresses for the first to fifth matters complained of link to posts that meet their descriptions as pleaded. The URL address to the sixth matter complained of does not. It is a link to a post by Michael Hunt dated 31 July 2023, not 1 December 2022. Further, it does not contain the imputations alleged.
9. Further, on the affidavit evidence before the Court, I am not satisfied that Ms Ivory has established the sixth matter complained of.
10. Mr Hurle deposes to having been shown Annexures A-F of the Statement of Claim and confirms that he "had seen [the posts] on or around the date [they] were first published" (Hurle Affidavit at [8]). There is an obvious difficulty with his assertion that Annexure F accords with the sixth matter complained of as it is pleaded in the Statement of Claim in circumstances where Annexure F is not before the Court and the URL address pleaded does not align with the description provided. It also notable that Mr Hurle makes no specific reference to the nature of the imputations that were said to be conveyed by the sixth matter complained of.
11. The same difficulty arises with respect to Mr Welsh's affidavit in which he too deposes to having been shown Annexures A-F to the Statement of Claim and to recall them having been published (Welsh Affidavit at [15]).
12. Ms Taylor identifies as the sixth matter complained of a post she viewed on or around 1 August 2023 which was alleged to have referred to Ms Ivory as having "boldly created a BS site" (Taylor Affidavit at [42]). That evidence is not consistent with the pleading of the sixth matter complained of in the Statement of Claim. It is, however, consistent with the post in the URL link referable to the sixth matter complained of, but that is an otherwise unpleaded matter.
13. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the sixth matter complained of has been established and I proceed to assess damages on the basis of the first five matters complained of only.
14. In summary, those five matters occurred between 1 December 2022 and 17 July 2023, a period of six and a half months. The imputations contained in the publications were variously that Ms Ivory:

(i) is guilty of an offence;

(ii) is unprofessional;

(iii) has engaged in illegal and immoral activities including money laundering, drug use, and associating with outlawed motorcycle gangs;

(iv) is a liar;

(v) has engaged in voter fraud;

(vi) is a bully;

(vii) is pathetic;

(viii) is a thief;

(ix) is a drug user;

(x) wants to destroy the Benaraby Dragway and incites members of the Central Queensland Drag Racing Association Inc to harass one another.

1. On any view of them, these were serious allegations to make. Imputations of specific criminal activity are, by their nature, particularly grave. In this case, they involve an imputation that Ms Ivory engaged in such conduct, whilst owing fiduciary obligations to the Association, the effect of which may impact her future participation in community associations of any kind.

1. Ms Ivory deposed to being an independent IT consultant, currently studying to become a mental health counsellor, a mother of three children, a bus driver, and an avid enthusiast for motor drag racing (First Ivory Affidavit at [4]). She has been a member of the Association for about nine years and been a volunteer for various roles within the Association (First Ivory Affidavit at [5]-[6]). From about 2020 to the date of the First Ivory Affidavit, Ms Ivory deposed to volunteering at least three to five days a month at the Benaraby Dragway and for the Association, except for a period in 2023 when she was banned from the Benaraby Dragway (First Ivory Affidavit at [8]). Ms Ivory also deposed to the nature of the community surrounding the Association, stating that it "is one where the members who attend the events frequently become well known to each other" (First Ivory Affidavit at [20]). She said, "[t]here is ... a community feeling for those who take part in events ... each person is a part of a distinct community ... focused on the [Association] and drag racing" (First Ivory Affidavit at [20]).
2. Ms Ivory's evidence was that the first matter complained of caused her significant distress, embarrassment, and shame and that she was so affected by the publication that she went to stay with her father. She became the subject of discussion in the drag racing community and, more broadly, felt deflated and disheartened and that there was no point in continuing to participate in the community (First Ivory Affidavit at [32]).
3. Ms Ivory's evidence was that the publication of the second matter complained of caused her shock and disbelief and made her feel attacked, nervous, and distressed (First Ivory Affidavit at [35]). She felt intimidated by Mr Gawley which forced her withdrawal from the drag racing community. She was no longer willing to assist the club or to participate in racing activities (First Ivory Affidavit at [38]).
4. Ms Ivory's evidence was that, following publication of the third matter complained of, she felt bashed, deflated, and withdrawn (First Ivory Affidavit at [43]). She was angry at the suggestion she was trying to destroy the Benaraby Dragway and was anxious and fearful that others might believe Mr Gawley's statements (First Ivory Affidavit at [48]).
5. Ms Ivory said that the fourth matter complained of caused her to feel sad, sick, and deflated (First Ivory Affidavit at [54]).
6. Ms Ivory said that she was distressed by the publication of the fifth matter complained of and fearful after the police had asked Mr Gawley to take down the first matter complained of (First Ivory Affidavit at [58]). She was also saddened and hurt that persons known to her supported the post (First Ivory Affidavit at [59]). She contacted the police, engaged in heightened vigilance, and took extra security measures at her home (First Ivory Affidavit at [62]).
7. Ms Ivory's evidence is that between April and June 2023 she travelled great distances to participate in events at other clubs (First Ivory Affidavit at [82]-[83]). She also spoke of being shunned by former friends (First Ivory Affidavit at [96]).
8. Three acquaintances of Ms Ivory provided affidavits in support of her claim. I am troubled as to the weight that should be given to this evidence. All three deponents have given evidence about the alleged actions of Mr Gawley and their opinions of him, none of which is relevant to the question of the impact of the publications on Ms Ivory and the consequences for her reputation. Had the matter been contested, there would no doubt have been serious challenges made to the admissibility of much of their evidence. I have attempted to ignore evidence of that kind and have given appropriate weight to the deponents' opinion of the impact of the matters complained of on Ms Ivory.
9. Mr Hurle is a member of the South West Drag Racing Association (Hurle Affidavit at [2]). He deposed to having known Ms Ivory for about four years and said he sees and speaks with her about once a month when he sees her at drag racing events (Hurle Affidavit at [3]-[4]). He deposes to becoming immediately concerned as to whether Ms Ivory was engaging in illicit drug activities upon reading the Facebook posts by Mr Gawley (Hurle Affidavit at [9]). He deposed to placing great weight on negative comments by Mr Gawley in the Facebook posts about Ms Ivory because of Mr Gawley's status as past president of the Association (Hurle Affidavit at [10]). Mr Hurle said that he also observed attendees at the Ironbark Raceway Easter 2023 event being cautious of her, explaining that her "general reputation" was that "she was trouble and should be avoided" (Hurle Affidavit at [12]). Mr Hurle said that it took "some several months for [Ms Ivory] to prove to [him] that she was not a troublemaker" (Hurle Affidavit at [15]).
10. Ms Taylor deposed to having known Ms Ivory for about nine years and being aware of her active volunteering at the Benaraby Dragway (Taylor Affidavit at [5]-[6]). She deposed to having viewed the six matters complained of (Taylor Affidavit at [37]-[42]). Ms Taylor's observations about the community are consistent with those of Ms Ivory. Ms Taylor said, "[t]he community of persons who attend the events at the Benaraby Dragway are a very tight-knit community. For those who attend regularly, we call it a family" (Taylor Affidavit at [7]). She deposed to observing a shift in attitude amongst the Association community towards Ms Ivory in or about mid-2023 and observed that Ms Ivory became nervous about attending race meetings and eventually stopped altogether (Taylor Affidavit at [28]). Ms Taylor said that she observed people at the Winton Raceway "actively avoid[ing] Ms Ivory and our camp" in June 2024 (Second Taylor Affidavit at [35]). She noted that people at drag racing events had asked her whether Ms Ivory was a drug user, a trouble-maker, or could be trusted (Taylor Affidavit at [43]-[44]). Ms Taylor said that, prior to the Facebook posts, she considered Ms Ivory to have had a "generally popular reputation" as "a person who was considered very giving with her time and energy" to the Association community (Taylor Affidavit at [46]). After the posts, it was her view that the Association community, and "other regional societies", had "formed a generally negative view" of Ms Ivory and "one she did not deserve" (Taylor Affidavit at [45]).
11. Ms Taylor also deposed to observing that Ms Ivory became a "recluse to the community" and stopped attending events (Taylor Affidavit at [47]). Ms Taylor said Ms Ivory told her she "was afraid to attend the events because of her concern for her safety" (Taylor Affidavit at [47]). She also said she had "observ[ed] Ms Ivory becom[e] tearful when talking about returning to the [Association] community, because of her fear of harm and that she will be shunned" by them (Taylor Affidavit at [48]). Ms Taylor said that she "honestly feel[s] Ms Ivory has a long way to go before she has any chance of restoring her reputation" (Taylor Affidavit at [52]) but has observed her "becoming increasingly resilient" (Taylor Affidavit at [53]).
12. Mr Welsh appears to be Ms Ivory's partner, although this is not stated in either of Ms Ivory's affidavits nor in Mr Welsh's. It was not brought to my attention in submissions. Mr Welsh deposed to being an active part of the Association community for six years and having known Ms Ivory since about 2009 (Welsh Affidavit at [2]-[3]). He said that he has seen the matters complained of (Welsh Affidavit at [15]). Mr Welsh said that as a result of the publications, "it appeared that Ms Ivory's confidence faded and her enthusiasm for racing diminished" (Welsh Affidavit at [16]). He said based on his interactions with Ms Ivory in 2022 to 2023, "she was sad and isolated herself from everyone" (Welsh Affidavit at [17]). Mr Welsh deposed to Ms Ivory's demeanour worsening after the Facebook posts and that she would often cry and say words to the effect that "no one believes me" and "everyone hates me" (Welsh Affidavit at [27]). Mr Welsh deposes that Ms Ivory's healing has been assisted to some extent by her success against Ms Howard but that defamatory and threatening posts are continuing as at the date the affidavit was affirmed (28 March 2025) (Welsh Affidavit at [35]).

1. Ms Ivory submitted that there are circumstances of aggravation in the present case. Although the first matter complained of has been removed, the remainder have not. This is despite the concerns notice having been served on 21 September 2023. Further, Ms Ivory says that despite inviting an apology, none has been forthcoming.
2. Ms Ivory also points to 10 posts between 31 July 2023 and 8 February 2025, which consist of persistent attacks on Ms Ivory, crude jokes, sexual language, and vulgar nicknames from which it is possible to identify her (First Ivory Affidavit at [69]-[70]).

1. The award of damages in the present case needs to provide reparation for the harm done to Ms Ivory's reputation, give consolation for the personal hurt and distress caused by the Facebook posts, and vindicate her reputation. Although a court is entitled to have regard to other cases in considering the level of general damages, the quantum is not to be resolved by reference to a norm or standard: Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; 178 CLR 44 at 59. As outlined above at [9], a court may also take into account, as a factor in mitigation, that an applicant has already recovered damages for defamation in relation to any other publication of matter having the same meaning and effect as the defamatory matter: Defamation Act s 38(1)(c).
2. Ms Ivory was awarded damages against Ms Howard to provide reparation for the harm done to Ms Ivory's reputation, give consolation for the personal hurt and distress caused by the defamatory matter, and to vindicate her reputation. The defamatory matter was published by Ms Howard on 17 November 2022, 21 February 2023 and 13 July 2023 - a period of time which overlaps almost exactly with that during which Mr Gawley made his defamatory publications, 1 December 2022 to 17 July 2023.
3. The imputations contained in Ms Howard's publications were that Ms Ivory: was a violent person who had made threats of violence against committee members and had engaged in underhanded conduct within the Association; that she was a liar and engages in illicit use of marijuana, including whilst on or at the racetrack; and that she was a bully, pathetic, was guilty of criminal damage to a racetrack and, together with other former volunteers and committee members of the Association, had been engaged in illegal activities, including money laundering, drug use, involvement in outlawed motorcycle gangs, attempted theft, and theft.
4. In assessing the quantum of the award against Ms Howard, I said the following: Ivory v Howard at [40]:

Here, the evidence is that Ms Ivory has suffered significant sadness, anger, hurt and dismay on account of the Facebook posts. She has lost friends and acquaintances. She has lost her standing in a close-knit community. Although Ms Taylor deposed to Ms Ivory's increasing resilience and return to the drag racing community, and recognition by some racing clubs that she is a positive contributor (Taylor Affidavit at [15]-[16]), that neither discounts Ms Ivory's feelings nor points to restoration of her reputation within her own community of the Association. Similarly, although Mr Hurle deposes to having changed his initial opinion of Ms Ivory and that she is welcome by him at events at the Ironbark Raceway (Hurle Affidavit at [14], [16]), there is otherwise no evidence of change in attitude towards Ms Ivory amongst members of the Association. Indeed, such may be thought unlikely given the posts, as recently as 21 November 2024.

1. In the present case, I am satisfied that the award of $75,000 against Ms Howard provides a basis to mitigate the award that might otherwise have been made against Mr Gawley. That is in large part because the imputations are largely identical and there is evidence that the award has indeed achieved some of what such an award is intended to do (Welsh Affidavit at [35]; First Ivory Affidavit at [101]).
2. Nevertheless, it remains appropriate to make an award of damages against Mr Gawley because of the cumulative impact of his publications on the distress suffered by Ms Ivory as a result of all of the matters complained of.
3. I am also satisfied that this is a case where it is appropriate to increase the damages that may have been awarded because of Mr Gawley's unjustifiable failure to respond to the concerns notice and his persistence in continuing to publish material directed at defaming Ms Ivory up until 12 February 2025. It appears that the judgment against Ms Howard on 10 December 2024 may have been a salutary lesson for Mr Gawley. There was no evidence before me of any publications after 12 February 2025.
4. Ms Ivory submitted that she should be entitled to recover damages for economic loss, in addition to general damages. In her second affidavit, Ms Ivory deposed to having suffered economic loss and claims damages for that loss which includes the loss of opportunity to earn income from IT consulting contracts and incurred medical costs (Second Ivory Affidavit at [7]-[9] and [15]-[21]). The difficulty with this submission is two-fold. First, no claim for economic loss has been pleaded. Secondly, the evidence in support of the claims is wholly inadequate. As to the claim for lost income, no supporting documentation to verify Ms Ivory's estimation of lost earnings was exhibited to her affidavit. One might have expected at the very least payslips and/or tax returns for the relevant periods. Similarly, the supporting documents said to sustain the claim for medical expenses were inadequate. No evidence from a treating practitioner was adduced.

1. In all the circumstances, I consider that an award of damages in the amount of $15,000 is appropriate with interest pursuant to s 51A(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 39.06 of the Rules, calculated from the date of service of the concerns notice, being 21 September 2023.
2. I have already made orders requiring Mr Gawley to remove the defamatory posts from the Facebook pages to which he has posted them and permanently restraining him from publishing or republishing matter which carries the same or similar imputations.
3. As to costs, Ms Ivory seeks costs on an indemnity basis. At the hearing, leave was given to Ms Ivory's solicitor to file a further affidavit evidencing the offers that had been made by her. A further affidavit of Michael Finch was filed by leave on 18 February 2026. Given s 40(2) of the Defamation Act, it is appropriate to so order.

I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Sarah C Derrington.