My apology

Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.

I gave the following apology to Southall’s clients:

There was never any intention to defame [either the first or second plaintiff] and I give an unqualified apology for any hurt, humiliation, injury, embarrassment, concern or loss of reputation they have or feel they have suffered as a result of the quarryfight.com website or any imputations therein[1].

In further great disregard for the truth, Southall (under the instructions of Smith, with the assistance of Kaye and then Spencer, and with the approval of man X and man Y) was more than willing to not only introduce the topic of my apology when it had never been pleaded, but to also falsely, misleadingly and deceptively change and twist his accusations to suit the key point he was trying to make at any given time. I was caught by surprise by Southall’s venom, groundless accusations, his onslaught on my apology, and his irrational and contradictory claims regarding it. Further, I had not been prepared for his assault and ambush against me for having apologised. I did not have to apologise given that what I had said in the website was true, but I did so because I wanted to, and it was sincere. Because I was caught by surprise, I could not prepare – how do you prepare for something like Southall’s contradictory, bullying, fraudulent and abhorrent conduct?

The following shows an unwavering attempt to cut me down and defame me by repeatedly introducing the issue of my apology, vacillating about the quality of my apology, and by the irrational claims regarding it and, as a result, I was caught entirely by surprise – particularly by Southall’s venom, groundless accusations, and his virulent onslaught.

For example, in relation to my apology, Southall contradicted himself. On the one hand he claimed the apology was desultory [emphasis mine]:

All that’s been received is a – what we would describe as a desultory apology on the very last day of [her] closing submissions in the very last paragraph.

On the other hand he claimed the apology was carefully, highly and tightly crafted [emphasis mine]:

By publication of an apology which is a carefully crafted document – sorry, a carefully crafted statement which she read from screen at the very conclusion of her submissions. It’s said somewhat starkly – it’s worth reading at page 461: “I agree to not whether by myself, my servants, agents or howsoever … (reads) … or feel they have suffered as a result of the quarryfight.com website or any imputations therein.” Not bad, one might have thought, for an ex-legal secretary who’s got no legal experience. One perhaps might infer that that was drafted by someone on her behalf or perhaps with the assistance of someone with legal qualifications.

… a very carefully crafted apology at the very end of her address.

…it was a reluctant, highly crafted apology…

… her tightly crafted apology…

According to Southall, somehow it manages to be an aimless, random, unfocused, haphazard, indiscriminate, half-hearted, casual and erratic, but carefully, highly, and tightly crafted apology by (or with the assistance of) someone with legal qualifications! How absolutely (and otherwise laughably) absurd.

In addition, Southall fraudulently told the Court of Appeal, as absolute fact, that his clients sought an apology in their letter dated 19 August 2011:

[the letter] sought … an apology

[the letter] seeks an apology

There was no such request, indication or even implication that they wanted an apology. Along with so much else that was provably inaccurate in this letter, this is yet further fraudulent claim that Southall added and it further caught me by surprise.

Southall made false and dishonest submissions that my apology was “reluctant” or “forced”:

… it was done in such, we would submit, reluctant if not forced circumstances, that it can be seen as adding to the hurt…

This claim was made with absolutely nothing to back up or substantiate it, other than, perhaps an acknowledgement that he believed that his attempts at intimidation had worked. The apology was never reluctant and it was never forced. The fact that I initiated the apology without the topic having been pleaded by, or on behalf of, Southall or his clients is clear evidence that I had not been forced into an apology – hence it was a further false claim by Southall. Any delay in giving it was due to a number of things:

  1. Firstly, during mediation I gave a written apology to the mediator to pass on to Southall’s clients – however, the mediator came back and said that they had all left the mediation unannounced and that he was therefore unable to deliver it.
  2. Secondly, I gave the apology the first time that I was given the opportunity to give any submissions, and the reason that it was left until the end of those submissions was because I wanted it to be left in Southall’s clients’ minds and not lost amongst other submissions.
  3. Thirdly, I was sorry if they had been hurt by what I wrote, and my apology was sincere and given freely. However, I could not apologise for what they subsequently alleged as falsity in the website because what I had said was true and provably so, and they knew it.

Southall repeatedly tried to put his interpretations of my motives and attitudes, but continued to fail to be accurate in his assumptions, derogatory and somewhat defamatory, aspersions.

Southall told the Court as fact that:

…the persons who gave evidence in the case and others on the web would almost certainly not have access to that apology unless of course it had been circulated on the web itself.

This is a dishonest submission because it should be noted that he and/or his clients ensured that the Judgment (including my apology) was (and is) on the web.

Southall pleaded before their Honours in the 2014 appeal:

Now Your Honour, there is more I would say by way of reply in the apology. Just this point, my learned friend in his submission and today has emphasised the fact that the apology wasn’t pleaded and that observation by His Honour that the apology wasn’t pleaded. But of course, the plaintiffs didn’t and I didn’t know on behalf of the plaintiffs didn’t know that an apology was going to be made until the last day of submissions. It wasn’t the last day of the trial, it was about I think the second-last day of the trial when [the defendant] made her tightly crafted apology to the court. That doesn’t completely answer the point because if it’s properly said, we say it’s not properly said, that apology must be pleaded and particularly in view of what Justice Shellar and Abardy have said, if it’s general compensatory damages that you’re looking to, then it doesn’t need to be pleaded, in our submission. But we didn’t know until that point, so we couldn’t have pleaded. It couldn’t have been pleaded but that said, I accept the fact that if the dictate is that it should be pleaded, we knew from I suppose we knew from the date the writ was issued, up to that point, I think that was December 2011, that there’d been no apology, and of course there was no apology from that time up until the date of the trial and up to the, I think, penultimate day of trial. But we couldn’t have pleaded that the apology came late or that it was inadequate or inappropriate, because we didn’t know. And it couldn’t be reasonably expected that we’d amend the pleading at that point of the trial, and indeed, the indications are that we might not have got or we would not have got the leave of the court or the Honourable Judge.

Southall complained that there had been no early apology and that his clients were impacted by this omission. However, each of them knew that, prior to their first statement of claim in 2011, their second, third, fourth and fifth claims in 2012, and their sixth and seventh statement of claims in 2013, that there had been no apology to that point, yet not once did they plead it when altering their claims and particulars. The fact is that it was not an issue until it was given and then Southall tried to, and succeeded in, swaying the judges by his dishonest and nonsensical submissions.

Note the last sentence in the above quote:

And it couldn’t be reasonably expected that we’d amend the pleading at that point of the trial, and indeed, the indications are that we might not have got or we would not have got the leave of the court or the Honourable Judge.

In spite of noting that it would be unreasonable to request it, Southall had tried hard to get permission to amend his pleadings at that point and was refused! Further, he did not get “indications” from Pagone J that a yet further amendment was not allowed – it was an outright “no”.

Alternatively and fraudulently, Southall strenuously and repeatedly implied that I had not given an apology at all [emphasis mine]:

… but where you don’t proffer it, as here

there’s no apology for the purposes of s.38

I said in my submission at Line 12 on the following page, “The law of defamation has particular rules applying to it, one is that the issue of an apology over a publication, whether it be libellous or slanderous, which harms a person’s reputation or reduces the feeling or impinges significantly upon feelings upon goodwill, that is by way of distress and suffering. An apology is something that is expected in any event, and that’s why it’s enshrined in s.30(a) of the Defamation Act”. True it is 30(a) is in the context of mitigation, but nevertheless, apology, in our submission, apology has traditionally flowed as a matter, certainly in the context of damages, and certainly in the context that compensatory damages… 
However,” says His Honour, “I do not see the case as being decisions that conduct represented by a mere failure to apologise cannot be used as a component in general compensatory damages. Merely because it cannot be taken into consideration on the issue of aggravated damages, unless the absence of an apology is found to be improper, unjustifiable or lacking in good faith.

His Honour also says relevantly, “With respect, I do not see why the jury would not be entitled, depending upon the evidence, to find the harm suffered by the plaintiff could be affected or indeed increased by [the defendant]’s conduct in failing to apologise. Injury to the plaintiff’s reputation could be increased by readers or listeners who may have anticipated an apology. So might likewise injury to feelings be increased. Indeed, the failure to apologise itself could well in some cases further injure the plaintiff’s feelings or cause him disappointment. An apology may reduce the harm or hurt suffered by the plaintiff, absent such an apology, the harm or hurt may be increased. It is clear since Cassell that the jury are entitled to take into account the subjective sufferings of a plaintiff, and if such are increased by a mere failure to apologise, it is difficult to see why the general compensatory damages” – and I again stress that expression as opposed to aggravated, if the court pleases – “should not be increased to reflect this.

And (indistinct) the non giving of an apology.

And Southall dishonestly continued to harp upon it – thereby strongly putting it in the minds of the judges that there had been no apology when there had been and he absolutely knew that there had been.

Southall stated as fact, that:

…motivation and intent are totally irrelevant considerations when it comes to the issue of defamation.

Yet he twisted my motivations and intent for the apology to try to suit his case and his clients.

Southall then told the 2014 Court of Appeal as fact that:

One might even say it would be better to have no apology at all, but that’s an observation by me.

After I had given a sincere and heart-felt apology for any hurt in having published what I did, Southall made that disparaging remark – a remark that was clearly meant to tell their Honours that they should not give any credence to the apology. Further, the apology was not an issue until after it was given, and was not an issue until ~70% of the way through Southall’s own closing submissions. Thus, Southall misled and deceived the court as well as severely, and falsely, chastising me by irrationally and vicariously claiming that:

  • for giving the apology when I gave it,
  • for giving it at all,
  • because it was desultory[2],
  • because it was carefully and highly and tightly crafted[3] (a blatant contradiction to being desultory),
  • because it added to the hurt(!), and
  • because it would have been better for me not to have given it at all.

Southall in fact increased the matters in dispute by the unnecessary addition of the topic of the apology which, as noted by his Honour, had never been pleaded:

[B]ut it’s not in your pleading
 … Well, it’s not in the pleading.

Southall failed to be honest in a number of regards and, in fact, was very deliberate in his false and dishonest conduct.

I had not been prepared for Southall’s assault and ambush against me for having apologised. I did not have to apologise given that what I said in the website was true, but did so because I wanted to, and it was sincere. Because I was caught by surprise, I could not prepare – how do you prepare for something like Southall’s unacceptable contradictory, bullying, false, abhorrent, unconscionable and irrational conduct?

Clearly Southall has made dishonest claims and denials. As you can see as we progress through the topics, this is nothing new. The above is a strong indication about how relaxed Southall felt about making such claims and denials, and why he won the cases and close on $1m in in damages, interest and costs by determinedly colluding to denigrate me and mislead and deceive the court.

[1]    This apology was identified in full before Pagone J

[2]    Obviously in blatant contradiction to his claims of it being carefully and highly and tightly crafted.

[3]    Obviously in blatant contradiction to his claims of it being desultory.