Former librarian must apologise or pay damages after defamatory letter
Former Rai Valley Area School librarian Faye Leov in 2010 after receiving an apology from the school board for her dismissal. (File photo)
A school librarian behind a letter claiming her former boss was a "monster" and a "saboteur" has been told to apologise after a nine-day defamation trial.
And if she doesn't, she will have to pay $100,000 in damages.
Former Rai Valley Area School librarian Faye Leov and her husband Bernard Leov have been found partly responsible for a defamatory letter attacking former principal Loretta "Muff" Newton.
Justice David Collins said in his decision on Tuesday the letter was "calculated to injure Mrs Newton's reputation by exposing her to hatred, contempt or ridicule".
READ MORE:
* The librarian and the letter: A defamation case in small-town New Zealand
* Book work results in defamation case from former Marlborough principal
* The valley of unrest: A school dispute splits a rural community
It is the first time a court in New Zealand has ordered a correction and apology under the Defamation Act.
Former Rai Valley Area School principal Loretta "Muff" Newton brought the defamation claim in 2012. (File photo)
Dunedin woman Susan Dunn wrote the letter as part of her research for a book about a decade-long conflict within Marlborough's Rai Valley community, between Blenheim and Nelson.
She was employed by the Leovs in 2012 to write the book about Leov's experiences at the school and to "expose Newton as a bully", Justice Collins said.
Newton and Leov had clashed over the operation of the school library, which the Leovs helped build.
While Leov believed she had been bullied, Newton believed Leov was refusing to obey her lawful directions as principal.
"Their dispute had a profound effect on their lives and careers. It also divided their community," Justice Collins said.
Leov was fired after extended sick leave in 2008, but won an apology from the school board for unjustified dismissal in 2010.
Newton resigned the next year, mainly because of the way the board managed Leov's employment dispute, as well as associated health issues, Justice Collins said.
"Ultimately, both Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov became tragic victims as they sank deeper into the quagmire of their dispute."
Dunn's letter was sent to about 50 people in September 2012, mostly within the Rai Valley community and including members of Newton's church, urging them to share their experiences for Dunn's book.
Its contents drew on Dunn's lengthy interview with Leov, in which Leov spoke about wanting to put Newton "on her knees" and "thrash" her with a piece of birch.
The letter itself contained "a number of profoundly serious allegations", the most damaging of which claimed Newton "destroyed the lives of others", Justice Collins said.
It also claimed she bullied Leov and others at the school, misled the board, was dismissed from her position, and was mentally unwell.
"That saboteur, often disguised as someone doing good, literally sacrificed the wellbeing of your children, and numerous fine teachers, in order to satisfy her own appetite for, controlling, degrading and breaking, human life", the letter said.
The defendants failed to prove the statements in the letter were true, or an expression of honest opinion, Justice Collins said.
The Leovs' correction and apology should be sent to everyone who received Dunn's letter in 2012, and published in the public notices of the Marlborough Express and the Nelson Mail within a month, he said.
It was a more effective remedy for this case than awarding damages, he said.
But if the Leovs did not follow through with the correction and apology, they would have to pay $100,000 to Newton.
Justice Collins said the apology and correction should acknowledge the defamatory statements "were not true and [were] made without any proper basis", and that Newton's actions were "the reasonable and proper actions of a school principal with management responsibilities".
The Leovs would also have to pay Newton's legal costs.
Dunn had already apologised to Newton, who did not wish to continue a claim against the writer.
Justice Collins said Dunn was partly responsible for publishing the passages, but did not order an apology and correction from her.
The Leovs had not yet decided if they would appeal the decision as they were still reviewing the judgment, defence lawyer Christopher Griggs said on Tuesday.
- The Marlborough Express
