identify the asserted cause of that harm. In any case, I find this portion of Ms Tickle's evidence insufficient to establish loss or damage, as it fails to indicate a baseline of her existing anxiety on which the harm done by the respondents' conduct could be measured.
267 The following sentence at [39] of Ms Tickle's affidavit is therefore the only evidence of the loss or damage caused by Ms Grover's statements to which I can afford any weight:
Ms Grover's public statements about me and this case have been distressing, demoralising, embarrassing, draining and hurtful.
268 This brings us to the second difficulty for this basis: although the statements by Ms Grover that Ms Tickle is not a woman were hurtful, they were made bona fide. As has been made evident in the conduct of these proceedings, what the word "woman" means is deeply contested, and there must be scope in which persons can put forward an argument, both in proceedings and in their public discussion of them, where it is genuinely held and a legitimate part of their case. That is to be contrasted with the requirement set out in Triggell at 514, and accepted as applicable for awards of aggravated damages made under's 46OP(4)(d) based on subsequent conduct by respondents in relation to proceedings.
269 The meaning of "woman", and whether the applicant can be regarded as one, was a central plank of the respondents' case. Ms Grover is apparently deeply committed to her beliefs on this subject. Although that position was not vindicated in these findings, it would be an overstep by the Court in this context to award aggravated damages on the basis of comments about such beliefs, even though I accept Ms Tickle's evidence as to their effect on her.
270 These comments can be distinguished from allegations made by Ms Grover that Ms Tickle had harassed her, which Ms Grover had alluded to in Twitter posts and in an interview published by the Weekend Australian Magazine. Ms Grover also accepted in oral evidence that she had stated in other interviews that she had been harassed by the applicant and that she was afraid of her, although these statements were not referred to in Ms Tickle's affidavit. These statements were misleading to the extent to which they suggested that Ms Grover could really have no idea how Ms Tickle had received her mobile phone number. She had in fact provided it to Ms Tickle in an email exchange. Such an accusation was not a part of the respondents' case (and it would have been improper if it had been), and I would find it very difficult to consider these statements bona fide, given Ms Grover must have been aware that her mobile phone number was included in her email signature even if she had forgotten the specifics of her email exchange with Ms Tickle at the time she made the statements in question. Ms Grover
