The writer (or writers) made allegations including that the Ps (or some of them) - who ran an aged care facility - breached their duties, overlooked medical misconduct, engaged in extra-marital affairs and nepotism, stole funds, claimed expertise they did not have, and were evil and ungrateful.

The Court found each letter was defamatory: [69]

D denied writing and sending the letters.

D was a former director of nursing at the aged care facility: [75]

Relations between D and the Ps became strained following D’s alleged conduct while employed, and D’s resignation: [90]

Despite D’s denial the Court found D was extremely angry with the Ps: [96], [97]

As there was no evidence D published the letters, the Court was left to draw an inference as to who wrote them: [99], [100]

Having found D had engaged in forgeries when sending some letters [124], otherwise finding D’s evidence “wholly unsatisfactory” [125], and working through a detailed chronology [108], the Court drew the inference that each letter was sent by D: [140]

D was ordered to pay $635K in damages and restrained from publishing similar material in future: [193]