Mature-aged UNSW student accused of chatting up ‘barely legal’ girls scores catastrophic own-goal after suing over 2am Facebook post and sending desperate emails to keep his name secret

By MADELEINE DAMO – WEALTH AND WORKPLACE REPORTER

Published: 09:06 EDT, 5 October 2026 | Updated: 09:07 EDT, 5 October 2026

A serial litigator has lost his latest defamation battle – along with a bid to keep his name a secret – after failing to prove he had actually suffered reputational harm.

University of New South Wales mature-aged student Milton Kelly, 50, launched defamation proceedings against fellow alumnus Andrew Perish over what he claimed was a defamatory Facebook post about him.

The comment was posted in a popular group for UNSW students at 2.25am on a summer night in late February 2025. Mr Perish was responding to a post made by Mr Kelly, who went under the alias of ‘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 these assertions are true, only that they form the basis of what Mr Kelly sued over in a matter that has now been made public by the NSW District Court.

The original post made by Mr Kelly, aka ‘Mike Meyers’, was swiftly deleted and not tendered to the court, nor was any surrounding context.

Nearly a year later, Mr Kelly commenced defamation proceedings against Mr Perish when he filed his statement of claim on February 2.

A mock-up of the Facebook comment which Milton Kelly claimed was defamatory

UNSW mature-aged student Milton Kelly, 50 launched defamation proceedings against his fellow alumnus Andrew Perish over what he claimed was a defamatory Facebook post

As a memento of the proceedings, Mr Parish commissioned sketch artist Elaine Yin to capture the tension of the courtroom and the heated exchange between Judge Wass and Mr Kelly

In his filing, Mr Kelly alleged the Facebook post defamed him through various imputations including that he ‘flirted with barely legal girls’, ‘is creepy’, ‘is a paedophile’ and had ‘consistently behaved in a similar creepy manner at UNSW’.

As a prolific self-represented litigant, Mr Kelly has brought several defamation claims since 2020.

At least three of these relate to UNSW, with Mr Kelly alleging he was defamed by students, the university’s contracted security staff and the university itself.

In a compelling and continuing example of the Streisand effect, Mr Kelly’s frequent litigation has resulted in the purported harmful material being repeatedly put on the public record courtesy of NSW Caselaw – the New South Wales courts’ official online database of judgements – much to his frustration.

However, despite his demonstrated experience in bringing defamation claims, Mr Kelly appears to struggle when it comes to providing evidence of harm, as stated in prior judgements and reiterated in Judge Wass’ remarks published last month.

In his most recent legal battle, Mr Kelly chose not to swear an affidavit, instead relying on the Facebook post, which had been deleted.

To support his claim, Mr Kelly also tendered an undated document bundle, from previously dismissed proceedings relating to ‘similarly framed Facebook posts’ made by people who weren’t Mr Perish.

When pressed for further evidence of harm, Mr Kelly conceded there was no way to estimate how many people – if any – had actually read Mr Perish’s comment, nor could he recall how long it was up for.

He eventually conceded that the only evidence he had was the publication itself. Mr Kelly was also unable to establish that readers would have identified him as the subject of Mr Perish’s post, missing another key requirement in proving defamation.

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

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 Parish commissioned sketch artist Elaine Yin to capture the tension of the courtroom and the heated exchange between Judge Wass and Mr Kelly.