Embattled Hobart City Council candidate Louise Elliot has misled her own lawyers in an attempt to intimidate another candidate with a defamation threat, Tasmanian Times can reveal.
The controversy relates to two social media (Facebook) posts by independent ‘teal’ candidate Kate Kelly, posted on 19 and 20 July.
Elliot took umbrage with the posts firstly over what she interpreted as an allegation of ‘lying to the public’, then an allegation that Elliot had not properly acquitted a government grant received.
After an exchange of posts between Kelly and Elliot on the social media platform, Kelly made a clear apology and corrected her statement regarding the grant, which was to the Residential Rental Property Owners Association not Elliot personally.
In Kelly’s words: “I should have said in your capacity of director of the group or some such, apologies if that was confusing.”
Despite knowing that the allegation had been withdrawn publicly, Elliot advised her lawyers on 20 July as follows:
Can the letter please say something about the below conduct has been identified and client will begin processes under defamation legislation if the conduct does not cease immediately? Something like that? I don’t want to jump straight to concerns notice. A short letter will put her in her place.
The ‘below conduct’ were the matters in the Facebook posts.
Elliot also signalled the tone of events, writing: “I know this is petty. Politics.”
Lawyers Murdoch Clarke then issued a stern letter to Kelly on 28 July. It referred to the Facebook posts and demanded that the post and comments be deleted, and for Kelly to refrain from repeating them or similar comments in the future. For legal reasons Tasmanian Times has chosen not to publish the full letter but we have viewed its contents.
The letter concluded with the warning: “Should you fail to do so, our client will consier any process available to her, includiong the procedures set out in the Defamation Act 2005.”
The matter lay dormant for some weeks, as according to Kelly she was not aware of receiving the letter.
However on 23 August Louise Elliot forwarded the letter by email to Kelly, including her own advice to her lawyers.
Kate Kelly then sought her own legal advice.
Her lawyers The Cangelosi Firm shot back the following day:
We are instructed that one of the Facebook posts referred to in your letter of 28 July 2022 was amended so as to delete the basis of your client’s complaint prior to the date when your letter was sent, and the other post was deleted on 3 August 2022.
We otherwise advise that our client will continue to campaign on matters that are properly within the public interest.
Tasmanian Times understands that there has been no further direct communication between the parties on the issue.
Elliot’s ham-fisted attempt at legal bullying is at odds with her own promise to be ‘open’ and the kind of person who ‘will respect your opinion and not try to censor you’ that appears on her social media.
The attempt to silence Kelly comes after several Louise Elliot run-ins with Mayor Anna Reynolds.
In April this year, a Code of Inquiry investigation threw out a complaint by Elliot, labelling part of it ‘vexacious’.
A sitting Hobart councillor, who did not wish to be named, commented that Elliot would be ‘a disaster’ if she was elected to Council.
“This is a terrible election,” they said. “All the snakes are out. And she … let’s just say she does not play nicely.”
Elliot has chosen to use an ambiguous profile title on her Facebook account – Lord Mayor and Councillor Candidate – potentially implying that she is the current mayor; ‘Candidate for Councillor and Lord Mayor’ would be clearer and without the implication.
Despite being from the Liberal Party, Elliot is not using the party logo on her campaign materials in this election. Elliot is closely-aligned with anti-trans senator and Eric Abetz protege Claire Chandler.
Linda Poulton
September 12, 2022 at 14:06
Louise Elliot might like to think a little longer before simply pressing the Forward tab in future.
Acknowledging that you are being petty and simply wanting to “put someone in their place” would not look good before a Court. The Court case was over before it ever had a chance. Such an astounding “own goal”.
I would urge you to be more careful in future, Louise.
Anthony Davey
September 22, 2022 at 19:19
I also recently noticed a billboard in the city.
She is clearly using TEAL colouring, and that’s a bit of an issue, I think.
Tim Eldridge
October 8, 2022 at 11:57
This seems like a petty article about a trivial matter.
Kelly’s original post was clearly defamatory. The letter from Elliot’s lawyers was heavy-handed, but she was entitled to defend herself. The snide reference to her as ‘Embattled’, and THE suggestion that defending herself constitutes intimidation, serves only to highlight the author’s emnity toward Elliot.
It’s a shame that politics is becoming litigious, for this indicates a lack of goodwill between candidates, but that is of much less concern than the ‘cancel culture’, commonly employed by the Left, which is totalitarian.
I’m still trying to decide who to vote for, but this article has boosted Elliot higher in my list of preferences than might otherwise have been the case. I might not agree with her on some things, but at least she is not attempting to cancel her oponents.
Among the 44 candidates there’s not one that I’m strongly motivated to vote for, and so small differences between candidates will make a significant difference to my preferences.
Chief Editor TT
October 10, 2022 at 09:44
The story is literally about Elliot’s campaign being a petty affair based on trivial matters. The story is literally about Elliot trying to cancel her opponents.