Login
Lawyer awarded $160k for former clients’ defamatory emails
A sole practitioner has been awarded $160,000 in damages from former clients who made “grossly defamatory” statements in emails to several high-profile members of the legal profession, including a chief justice, an attorney-general, and a legal disciplinary board.
Naomi Neilson
Justice Paul Tottle of the Supreme Court of Western Australia awarded the sole practitioner $160,000 in damages for two emails that had “no foundation in fact” and contained allegations found to be “indefensible and should never have been made”.
Justice Tottle found these allegations to be “bizarre, irrational, scandalous and calculated to distress the plaintiff”.
Brown sent the email to the West Australian governor, the chief justice, the attorney-general, the commissioner of Police, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia – which had already dismissed a complaint – and a third party who wanted to retain the practitioner.
“It is difficult to reconcile any rational explanation for the first defendant’s decision to send … the email,” Justice Tottle said.
Although the sole practitioner knew the email had been circulated and was aware of its “flavour”, she did not see it until a month later.
“I felt like my stomach dropped out of my body.
“It is one thing to hear that people are complaining about you, but to see the allegations, words like fraud that hadn’t been attributed to you is – it is horrifying, horrifying,” she told the Supreme Court.
The second email was sent on 31 July by Jerald Martin and Emma Hazel Martin – former clients but also friends of Brown – who alleged she committed criminal offences, including corruption of a witness, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and fraud.
It was sent to more people than the first email, including the Magistrates Court, an employee of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a member of the State Parliament.
Justice Tottle was satisfied Brown helped prepare the second email.
Prior to sending the email, Mr Martin expressed frustrations with the lack of progress in his matter but told the practitioner he blamed the other party and their solicitors “for stalling”.
Mr Martin also told her he believed Brown was “out of control”, had no desire for him to interfere in the Martin matter, and said the “worst part” was he introduced her to Brown and felt bad about it.
Given the seemingly harmonious relationship between the parties, the sole practitioner said her first thought when reading the second email was Mr Martin had been “hacked”.
Justice Tottle said it was clear the Martins’ frustrations and financial hardship left them susceptible to Brown’s influence, despite earlier conversations that suggested they would not support him.
He added the Martins “acted unreasonably and with an absence of good faith”, particularly given the sending of this second email would have aggravated the practitioner’s injury from the first email.
“The plaintiff had done nothing to justify the statements made about her in the email. They were entirely without foundation.
“The shock felt by the plaintiff on reading the email and her subsequent distress are readily understandable,” Justice Tottle said.
The sole practitioner gave evidence she turned “into a hermit” and withdrew from the professional community. She also believed her workload significantly decreased as a result, but this was dismissed.
A day before the Martins’ email, the sole practitioner said she attended an event in the Supreme Court and received “unusual looks” from the judiciary, including from the Chief Justice.
She described a “rising sense of panic” that Brown’s email may have caused people to “question her and her conduct”.
While Justice Tottle accepted the practitioner held a genuine belief she was being judged by members of the judiciary, he did not find it possible a judge would form an adverse view of her based on Brown’s email, especially if they previously had a good rapport.
It was for this reason Justice Tottle was not persuaded the emails had caused actual damage to the practitioner’s reputation.
“In my judgment, a judge, or a lawyer who was considering referring work to the plaintiff, reading the 28 June 2023 email would consider the allegations made with a great deal of scepticism and would not give them any credence,” Justice Tottle said.
Justice Tottle said a similar thing about the second email and added it was unlikely those outside the judicial community would have paid any attention to it.
In addition to the monetary award, Justice Tottle made a permanent injunction against the defendants from repeating the defamatory imputations in the two emails or “statements to a like effect”.
The case is Michelmore v Brown [No 3] [2025] WASC 9 (15 January 2025).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
