In an acrimonious saga involving disparaging videos on Youtube, false posts about school administrators being convicted of sex crimes, and other fanciful claims of mis-management, a parent has been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended for three years.

This unfortunate series of events took place between a father, who we will call the Parent, and Emmanuel College, Queensland (his daughter's school).

The history

The Parent is a solicitor who ran a conveyancing business. He and his then wife enrolled their daughter at Emmanuel College in 2010. He and his wife subsequently separated.

The breakdown in the relationship between the Parent and Emmanuel College was reported in September 2013. At this time, the Courier Mail reported on the story of a father who took his daughter's school to court after the school billed him for a copy of his daughter's report card. The article goes on to report that he attempted to pull his daughter out of the school as he couldn't afford the school fees, but his ex-wife would not allow it.

Prior to the recent case, he had taken legal action against the school, including claims for:

• misleading and deceptive conduct;
• unfair contractual terms; and
• unconscionable conduct.

All claims were dismissed. In an appeal against one of these decisions (subsequently dismissed), the appeal judge, Justice Rangiah, said:

[The Parent] has waged a campaign against Emmanuel College, including by pursuing proceedings in several courts and a tribunal, by complaining or threatening to complain to the police, child safety, anti-discrimination and regulatory authorities, by appearing on the television program “Today Tonight” and by establishing a website and Facebook page.  [The Parent] presents himself as a crusader for the public good.  Emmanuel College sees [the Parent]’s conduct merely as a source of considerable vexation for it and its staff.  

The present case

After this set of claims, a settlement was reached between Emmanuel College and the Parent. That settlement involved an enforceable promise by the Parent to do all things necessary to remove certain content from the internet and to withdraw various other matters including court claims in relation to anti-discrimination, defamation, and complaints to ASIC. These promises were filed in court.

Subsequently, Emmanuel College brought proceedings alleging contempt of court. Namely, that the Parent had breached these promises. The claims were that the Parent published:

• videos on YouTube;
• false claims that a school administrator had been convicted of child sex crimes;
• claims that the college's canteen poisoned students;
• a post that a teacher was accused of sex with a student;
• a post that the school was 'a haven for paedophiles';
• a post that the school was the 'drug capital of the gold coast';
• a post entitled 'Bankrupted Parents by Emmanuel College Gold Coast';
• a post entitled 'Parents Arrested for Trespass at Emmanuel College Gold Coast Australia';
• a post that the school was being investigated by ASIC; and
• various websites pertaining to the school, registered under false names.

These claims were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and as a consequence, the Parent was found guilty of contempt of court. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended for 3 years. Remarking on the sentence, Justice Atkinson said:

'[The Parent] was in a position to know that he ought not do what he was doing. He was a practicing solicitor... he was more than ordinarily aware of the need to comply with orders made by and undertakings given to the court'.

The Parent was also made to pay costs on an indemnity basis, meaning that he must meet almost all of the costs expended by Emmanuel College in bringing this application.

A sad tale of legal costs

Unfortunately for the college involved, these proceedings were perhaps unavoidable in that the Parent's actions could not have been predicted. His persistence in bringing multiple proceedings as well as his persistence in attacking the school could not have been foreseen, notwithstanding his bankruptcy, the emotional turmoil from his divorce, and his bitterness towards the college.

Tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs were expended. For the school, in cases like this where they are forced to mount a legal defence, there is no upside, no matter how the case is decided - they will be out of pocket either way.

Although nothing on the record indicates the confidential discussions between Emmanuel College and the Parent, it appears from the agreement and filing of a settlement, that attempts were made to settle the matter out of court.

If there is anything that is to be learned from this, it is perhaps that, like with any business, school managers must account for and factor in the risk of legal costs that will be thrown away. In this sad saga, there were no winners.