There's a bit more information now and I'd like to know if there's anywhere out there on the interwebs, a template that exists for my friend to write a response back to the concerns notice?
Just a quick recap - this is a situation going on in a small school P&C committee. One member wrote a complaint about the Treasurer, sent it to the Secretary, who disseminated to the rest of the Executive committee (President & Vice President). The (ex) Treasurer is now suing the member that wrote the complaint.
She's able to call on several defences to his claim of defamation:
- Defence of Honest Opinion (1): she said that he caused trouble. It was her opinion based on sitting in many meetings where he was oppositional, negative, critical and wouldn't agree to any progress within the committee. Several other people held the same opinion.
- Defence of Justification: she said that he didn't follow procedures for example when supplying items from his personal business to the committee for fundraising events. (At the meeting after the event, he would spring on the committee that he had supplied items, and his invoice was submitted for payment.
There's a very clear procedure to follow in this instance whereby he was to propose the supply of stock, leave the room, the rest of the committee vote on it, invite him back in and tell him of the decision, before the event.). This is true and is reflected in three consecutive meeting minutes.
- Defence of Honest Opinion (5): Opinion based on proper material that attracts the protection under section 28 or 29.
- Section 28: Defence for publication of public material. P&C minutes and agendas are public material and the evidence of her statement is clearly shown in all minutes.
- Section 29: Defence of fair reporting of proceedings of public concern. Yes, I know it's just a small school P&C, but the proceedings are of public concern to the school community, committee members, school staff, P&C QLD, and Dept of Ed.
- Section 30: Defence of qualified privilege. That is the Secretary has an interest in the feedback from committee members about the conduct of it's members, particularly the executive members.
- Section 33: Defence of Triviality: My friend sent her complaint with the assumption that the information would not be shared with the wider school community or the Treasurers business contacts. To this date, her complain isn't a part of the public documentation available to the new committee.
Also in the defamation act, is the statement that the act is to "ensure that the law does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression, and in particular, on the publication and discussion of matters of public interest and importance.”
So basically, I interpret the act in this instance as such - he has no grounds to sue for defamation because my friends comments are protected under sections 28 & 29, but are also indicative of her opinion, were not "published" with the intention of ruining his personal or professional reputation and she has evidence of facts that support her statements.
Have I got the interpretation correct-ish?