On 27 February 2026, Justice Sarah C Derrington of the Federal Court delivered judgment in Ivory v Gawley [2026] FCA 165, awarding the applicant $15,000 in damages for defamation arising from a series of Facebook posts published between December 2022 and July 2023. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis — a significant financial consequence on top of the damages award.
The decision is instructive for practitioners and litigants alike, particularly in respect of damages mitigation where multiple publishers are involved in the same factual dispute, the evidential standard required for economic loss claims, and the costs consequences of failing to engage with the pre-litigation process.
Background and Facts
The dispute arose between members of the Central Queensland Drag Racing Association Inc — a tight-knit community of motor sport enthusiasts who volunteered and raced at the Benaraby Dragway in Queensland.
The applicant, Ms Sheree Ivory, was a long-standing member and volunteer who had been involved with the Association for approximately nine years. The respondent, Mr Michael Gawley, was the Association's President and operated a Facebook account under the pseudonym "Michael Hunt," which had approximately 80 followers and 40 "friends." Ms Ivory also administered a Facebook group called "Friends of Benaraby Dragway" with 1,757 members.
Between December 2022 and July 2023, Mr Gawley published a series of posts on the Michael Hunt Facebook account and on the Benaraby Dragway website. The posts alleged, among other things, that Ms Ivory:
- Was guilty of criminal offences including theft, money laundering, and associating with outlawed motorcycle gangs
- Was a drug user
- Had engaged in voter fraud
- Was unprofessional, a bully, and a liar
- Was deliberately attempting to destroy the Benaraby Dragway
- Had only sought election to the Association committee in order to steal from it
Justice Derrington observed that, on any view, "these were serious allegations to make," and that "[i]mputations of specific criminal activity are, by their nature, particularly grave."
Critically, Ms Ivory had brought parallel proceedings against a second publisher, Ms Susan Howard, who had made substantially the same allegations on Facebook during the same period. In Ivory v Howard [2024] FCA 1416, Justice Derrington had already awarded Ms Ivory $75,000 in damages plus indemnity costs against Ms Howard.
The Hearing
By October 2025, Mr Gawley had informed the Court by email that he could no longer participate in proceedings. He stated he was unemployed, without a computer, electricity, or internet access, and that his phone "may soon be disconnected for non-payment." He did not appear at the hearing on 17 February 2026.
Justice Derrington was satisfied that Mr Gawley had abandoned his defence and entered judgment pursuant to r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. An injunction was also granted restraining him from further defamatory publications and requiring removal of existing posts.
Damages Assessment
The Mitigation Issue: Prior Award Against a Co-Publisher
The most notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's treatment of damages mitigation under s 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). Those provisions permit evidence to be admitted in mitigation that the plaintiff has already recovered damages — or brought proceedings — in relation to another publication having the same meaning and effect.
Justice Derrington expressed disappointment that Ms Ivory's legal practitioner had not drawn the Court's attention to this provision, nor to the fact that the prior $75,000 award against Ms Howard had been made 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."
Her Honour found that the prior award "provides a basis to mitigate the award that might otherwise have been made against Mr Gawley," noting that the imputations were "largely identical" and there was evidence the prior award had already achieved some of its reparative and vindicatory purposes.
Nevertheless, the Court held it remained appropriate to make a separate award against Mr Gawley because of the "cumulative impact of his publications on the distress suffered by Ms Ivory."
Impact on the Applicant
The evidence established that the publications caused Ms Ivory significant distress, embarrassment, and withdrawal from the drag racing community. Three witnesses — including fellow Association members — gave evidence that:
- Ms Ivory became a "recluse to the community" and stopped attending events
- Other community members actively avoided her at race meetings
- People at drag racing events asked whether she was a "drug user, a trouble-maker, or could be trusted"
- One witness initially placed "great weight" on Mr Gawley's allegations because of his status as past president
Justice Derrington noted, however, that much of the supporting witness evidence included irrelevant opinion material about Mr Gawley himself. Had the matter been contested, "there would no doubt have been serious challenges made to the admissibility of much of their evidence."
Aggravated Damages
The Court accepted that circumstances of aggravation existed: most of the defamatory posts had not been removed despite a concerns notice being served on 21 September 2023; no apology had been offered; and Mr Gawley had continued to publish "persistent attacks" on Ms Ivory — including crude jokes, sexual language, and vulgar nicknames — between July 2023 and February 2025.
Economic Loss Claim Rejected
Ms Ivory sought damages for economic loss, including lost IT consulting income and medical expenses. The Court rejected both claims. First, no claim for economic loss had been pleaded. Second, the evidence was "wholly inadequate" — no payslips, tax returns, or treating practitioner evidence had been tendered.
This aspect of the decision serves as a sharp reminder that economic loss in defamation proceedings must be both properly pleaded and rigorously proved with documentary evidence.
The Award
Balancing the seriousness of the imputations, the impact on Ms Ivory, the aggravating factors, and the mitigation arising from the prior $75,000 award against Ms Howard, the Court awarded $15,000 in general damages with interest from the date of service of the concerns notice (21 September 2023).
Costs: Indemnity Basis
Pursuant to s 40(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), the Court ordered costs on an indemnity basis. Mr Gawley had failed to respond to the concerns notice, failed to make any offer to settle, and failed to engage with the litigation process. The costs order — to be assessed as a lump sum — is likely to substantially exceed the damages figure itself.
This is a recurring pattern in defamation litigation: the costs exposure frequently dwarfs the damages. Respondents who ignore concerns notices and disengage from proceedings face not only a judgment on the merits but also a costs bill that punishes their failure to participate.
Practical Implications
The decision offers several practical lessons:
- Facebook posts in small communities cause real harm. The drag racing community numbered fewer than 2,000 members, and the "Michael Hunt" account had only 80 followers. Yet the Court found the publications caused serious reputational damage within a "tight-knit" community where "the members who attend the events frequently become well known to each other." Defamation does not require mass publication — harm within a defined community is sufficient.
- Multiple publishers, multiple proceedings. Where defamatory material of the same substance is published by more than one person, the plaintiff may pursue each publisher separately. However, s 38(1)(c) of the Defamation Act will operate to mitigate subsequent awards where prior damages have already provided reparation and vindication. Practitioners should be alert to this provision and, as Justice Derrington made clear, must bring it to the Court's attention.
- Ignoring a concerns notice is financially dangerous. Mr Gawley's failure to respond to the concerns notice, combined with his failure to remove the posts or offer any apology, resulted in indemnity costs. The total financial exposure — $15,000 in damages plus indemnity costs on the entirety of Federal Court proceedings — will be substantial.
- Economic loss must be pleaded and proved. A general assertion of lost income is not enough. Documentary evidence — payslips, tax returns, contracts, medical records — is essential. Failure to plead economic loss at the outset forecloses the ability to recover it at trial.
- The serious harm threshold can be satisfied within small communities. This case illustrates that the audience need not be large. What matters is the nature of the community, the gravity of the imputations, and the actual impact on the plaintiff's standing within it.
How Matrix Legal Can Help
Whether you have been defamed on Facebook, in a Google review, or through any other online platform, the principles in Ivory v Gawley confirm that the courts take social media defamation seriously — even in disputes that may seem localised.
If you are the target of defamatory posts, acting promptly with a properly drafted concerns notice is the single most effective step. If you have received a concerns notice, responding appropriately — rather than ignoring it — can dramatically reduce your exposure to indemnity costs.
Mark Stanarevic personally reviews every matter. Request your free assessment today or call 1800 950 627.
This article is general information and not legal advice. Defamation risk turns on the precise words used, the publication context, the audience, and available evidence.