A prolific litigant has lost his latest defamation case—and his attempt to remain anonymous—after failing to demonstrate that a Facebook post had caused him any reputational damage.
Milton Kelly, a 50-year-old mature-aged student at the University of New South Wales, sued fellow alumnus Andrew Perish over a Facebook comment he alleged was defamatory.
The comment appeared at 2.25am on a summer night in late February 2025 in a popular UNSW student group. Mr Perish had posted it in response to a contribution by Mr Kelly, who used the alias ‘Mike Meyers’.
“Mike stfu honestly. I’ve followed your posts since 2022. You’re pushing 50 and were caught chatting up 18 yo girls in the law library. Seems like you’re the type of guy that can’t take no for an answer based of the consistent posts from 2022 [to] now,” Mr Perish wrote.
“Of course people are going to call you a pedo, it’s f***ing creepy. Yeah sure, maybe they shouldn’t have, but can you really blame them.”
The Daily Mail is not suggesting that any of those allegations are true. They formed the basis of Mr Kelly’s defamation action, details of which have now been made public in the NSW District Court.
Mr Kelly’s original post, published under the name ‘Mike Meyers’, was quickly deleted and was not presented to the court. No surrounding context was tendered either.
Almost a year later, Mr Kelly began defamation proceedings against Mr Perish by filing a statement of claim on February 2.
A mock-up of the Facebook comment at the centre of Milton Kelly’s defamation claim
UNSW mature-aged student Milton Kelly, 50, sued fellow alumnus Andrew Perish over an allegedly defamatory Facebook post
As a memento of the case, Mr Perish commissioned sketch artist Elaine Yin to portray the courtroom tension and his heated exchange with Judge Wass
Mr Kelly alleged the post conveyed several defamatory meanings, including that he had “flirted with barely legal girls”, was “creepy”, was a paedophile and had “consistently behaved in a similar creepy manner at UNSW”.
He is a prolific self-represented litigant who has launched several defamation claims since 2020.
At least three of those cases involved UNSW. Mr Kelly alleged he had been defamed by fellow students, the university’s contracted security personnel and the university itself.
His repeated legal actions have also created a striking example of the Streisand effect. Material he sought to suppress has been republished on the public record through NSW Caselaw, the official online database of New South Wales court judgments—a development that has reportedly frustrated him.
Despite his experience pursuing defamation claims, Mr Kelly has repeatedly faced difficulty producing evidence of actual harm, according to earlier judgments and comments by Judge Wass published last month.
In the latest case, Mr Kelly did not swear an affidavit. Instead, he relied on the Facebook post itself, even though it had been deleted.
He also submitted an undated bundle of documents from earlier proceedings that had been dismissed. Those matters concerned “similarly framed Facebook posts” written by people other than Mr Perish.
When asked for further proof of reputational harm, Mr Kelly acknowledged that he could not estimate how many people, if any, had read Mr Perish’s comment. He was also unable to remember how long the post remained online.
Ultimately, he accepted that the publication itself was his only evidence. Mr Kelly also failed to show that readers would have understood him to be the person targeted by the post, another essential element of a defamation claim.
Mr Kelly also suggested to Justice Wass (pictured) that she may not understand how it feels to be called a paedophile because she is a woman
A mock-up of some of the emails Milton Kelly sent to the NSW District Court
MUST READ: Survivor Star Wanted by FBI Speaks Out After Disappearing With Son
Milton Kelly fought hard but ultimately failed in his bid to keep his name under wraps
Judge Wass disagreed with the assertion that Mr Kelly was disadvantaged by his lack of legal knowledge, with his prior experience actually pointing to the contrary.
Mr Kelly also suggested to Justice Wass that she may not understand how it feels to have ‘multiple people’ calling him a paedophile behind his back because she is a woman.
Justice Wass instead said that her position was to the contrary, stating ‘to be labelled a child abuser or paedophile is one of the worst possible things that could be said about someone’.
‘Whilst I can appreciate [Mr Kelly’s] distress and concern at being called a paedophile, the Court is not concerned in this application with any hurt to feelings, but rather whether [Mr Kelly] has established that it is likely that serious harm has been caused to his reputation or will likely be caused in the future,’ she added.
Judge Wass ruled that there was no evidence that the publication in any way harmed Mr Kelly’s reputation, or caused him to be shunned or avoided.
Mr Kelly has brought several defamation claims since 2020, at least three of which relate to the University of New South Wales. (Above: a stock image of UNSW students. It is not suggested that anyone pictured is related to Mr Kelly’s litigation)
In her reasoning, she pointed to the fact the post was made in the early hours of the morning, ‘where there is no evidence that anyone read it, much less believed it’.
According to the published judgement, Mr Kelly was ‘disappointed’ by Judge Wass’ requests for evidence, and asked her to ‘use more common sense’ because she ‘should know stuff’.
Mr Kelly further contended that Judge Wass’ evidence requirements were ‘not in the interests of natural justice’.
Ultimately, Judge Wass ruled Mr Kelly was not identified in the post, nor was he able to establish any serious harm suffered to his reputation.
In a subsequent ruling, Judge Wass stressed that her decision did not mean the allegations had been proved, stating: ‘There is no suggestion in the Judgment that the imputation has been proved to be true. That was not the purpose of the s 10A hearing. There is no suggestion in any of the evidence that the imputation is true or even substantially true.’
Following the ruling, both Mr Kelly and Mr Perish were invited to advise of any typographical errors prior to the case going on the public record.
However, Mr Kelly instead took this as an opportunity to argue that the judgement should not be published at all. This set off a lengthy email chain with an increasingly belligerent and hostile Mr Kelly insisting that his name should not be published.
‘I don’t agree with my name being public. I have the right to take legal action without it being public. The public gains nothing from knowing my name and it just connects my name with ‘pedophile’ in search engines,’ one email read.
‘I don’t think you understand how much I dislike this claim being made against me.
‘I honestly don’t know what it takes to make you people understand how incredibly upsetting these accusations are, how frustrating it is that you will not do anything to deter them even after evidence that they are spreading, and how terrified I am of their continuing to spread.’
‘Try to f***ing understand how this makes me feel. Try to f***ing understand that. I will not be polite to you. Feel free to retroactively blame me for what you’ve done.’
Judge Wass then declined to grant the non-publication order, citing: ‘It will be clear from the judgment that no allegation of paedophilia has been substantiated.
‘Indeed, without the published detail of the judgement, it might be assumed that the allegation has been found to be proven. It is therefore in the interests of justice that it be published.’
As a memento of the proceedings, Mr Perish commissioned sketch artist Elaine Yin to capture the tension of the courtroom and the heated exchange between Judge Wass and Mr Kelly.