Champagne's on ice as Scots curling champion celebrates latest victory

A CURLING champion who sued the sport's national coach after he accused her of refusing to play for her country was awarded almost £22,000 in damages yesterday.

Gail Munro, 43, claimed that the Scotland coach, Derek Brown, defamed her when he told the media that she had been asked to return to the national team but declined.

Yesterday Lord Doherty, the judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, said he believed Mrs Munro had been stung by the false accusation and was still "deeply hurt". He added that the comments, refuted by the player but not retracted by Mr Brown, had damaged Mrs Munro's reputation in the curling community and beyond.

Last night Mrs Munro, of Stranraer, said she was relieved at the outcome. "I am pleased that the nightmare is effectively over. Justice has been done and truth has prevailed. That is how I feel. I had always believed in the truth of the situation," she said.

Earlier Mrs Munro told the court of an incident in which she overheard her name being mentioned in a restaurant. When she turned around, she said a man told her: "Ye dinnae ken me, but I ken you. You're the lass that didnae play for your country."

Mr Brown, who now works for a curling association in the United States, made his comments about Mrs Munro at a press conference in Canada in 2008 during the curling world championships in which the Scottish women's team lost eight consecutive games.

Mrs Munro said she was told in a "bolt from the blue" by Mr Brown that she was being dropped from the team. Mrs Munro met Rhona Martin, who led the British women's curling team to an Olympic gold medal in 2002, that night to discuss the matter. Mr Brown made his comments after hearing Ms Martin's account of the meeting.

However, Ms Martin told the court that she never said Mrs Munro would refuse to play for her country.

Lord Doherty said the crucial question was whether Mrs Munro had been asked by Ms Martin to play and if so, had refused. Mrs Munro denied this was the case. Ms Martin said that only Mr Brown had the authority to reinstate Mrs Munro to the team and he had not asked her to issue the invitation.

Ms Martin added that she had told Mr Brown that he should call Mrs Munro, who was angry and upset, although she warned him that Mrs Munro would probably tell him to "f*** off". But she added that she did not tell Mr Brown that Mrs Munro would refuse to play. Mr Brown claimed that Ms Martin said to him that she had asked Mrs Munro to play, but the response had been "no f****** way".

Lord Doherty said: "I am not persuaded that I should reject the evidence of Mrs Munro and Ms Martin on the critical issues. Mrs Munro impressed me as a witness who was doing her best to tell the truth. It was very clear to me that she had been stung by the allegations and was still deeply hurt by them.""Ms Martin was clear that she had not asked Mrs Munro to play. Nothing in her demeanour, or in any of her evidence as to the conversations with Mrs Munro, caused me to have any doubt about the credibility and reliability of her account of those conversations.

"I think it clear that Ms Martin was simply predicting what Mrs Munro's reaction would be if she was asked. Where her evidence conflicts with Mr Brown's evidence, I accept her account as being the more reliable one. It follows that Mrs Munro has proved her case and the defence of veritas (truth] fails."

Lord Doherty accepted that Mr Brown might have honestly believed the allegations to have been true at the time he made them. That made his conduct less culpable. However, much of the responsibility for finding himself in the position he did had to rest with him.

"Better management and communication on his part would have avoided the scenario which unfolded," he said.

He noted that Mr Brown had never issued a retraction, and continued to maintain the truth of his statements. He fixed damages at 21,950.