Defamation Claims FAQ

Defamation occurs when a person publishes matter that carries a defamatory meaning about another identifiable person to a third party. A defamatory meaning is one that would tend to lower the person in the estimation of ordinary members of the community, or cause them to be shunned, avoided, or ridiculed.

Each state and territory has enacted uniform defamation legislation based on the model Defamation Act 2005. Stage 1 amendments took effect on 1 July 2021, introducing the serious harm element, a concerns notice regime, and a public interest defence. The law is substantively identical across all jurisdictions.

Since 1 July 2021, a claimant must prove that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. For corporations, the test is serious financial loss. This threshold is assessed at the time of trial and is intended to filter out trivial claims.

Living natural persons and corporations with fewer than 10 employees (and not related to another corporation) can sue. Government bodies, large corporations, and deceased persons cannot bring defamation proceedings. Partnerships and unincorporated associations cannot sue in their own name.

A concerns notice is a mandatory pre-litigation step. The aggrieved person must give the publisher a written notice specifying the defamatory matter, the imputations, and the serious harm alleged. The publisher has 28 days to respond with an offer to make amends. Court proceedings cannot start until the notice period expires.

A formal offer under the Act that may include a correction, apology, payment of compensation, and an undertaking not to republish. If the claimant unreasonably refuses a reasonable offer, it is a complete defence and the court can award costs against the claimant.

Court proceedings must be commenced within 1 year from the date of first publication. The court can extend this by up to 3 years from publication if it is just and reasonable. The single publication rule means the clock starts on first publication, not each download or view.

Introduced in the 2021 amendments, this rule provides that a person has one cause of action for defamation in relation to the publication of the same matter, regardless of the number of times it is accessed or downloaded. The limitation period runs from the first publication.

Truth (justification) is a complete defence. The defendant must prove that the defamatory imputations are substantially true. Unlike the previous law in some states, there is no additional requirement to prove public interest. The onus is on the defendant to prove truth.

A defendant can rely on honest opinion if the matter was an expression of opinion (not fact), related to a matter of public interest, and was based on proper material that was substantially true. The opinion must be one that an honest person could hold on the basis of that material.

Introduced in 2021, a defendant is not liable if they prove the matter concerned an issue of public interest and they reasonably believed that publishing the matter was in the public interest. The court considers the seriousness of the imputation, the sources, and the steps taken to verify.

Qualified privilege protects publications made in circumstances where the publisher has a duty or interest in communicating the information and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it. It is defeated by malice. Statutory qualified privilege under the Act has additional requirements of reasonableness.

Damages for non-economic loss (harm to reputation, hurt feelings, and distress) are subject to a statutory cap, indexed annually (approximately $480,000 in 2025). Aggravated damages may be awarded for improper conduct by the defendant. Special damages for financial loss may also be claimed if proved.

Yes. Courts can grant injunctions to restrain further publication of defamatory matter. Interlocutory injunctions are rarely granted because of the principle against prior restraint of speech, but final injunctions after judgment are more common.

Yes. Each publication of defamatory matter gives rise to liability. Sharing, retweeting, or reposting content can constitute a fresh publication, making the person who shared it a publisher. The serious harm threshold and available defences still apply.

Following the High Court decision in Fairfax Media v Voller (2021), page administrators who facilitate third-party comments can be publishers of those comments. The 2021 amendments introduced a new defence for digital intermediaries who did not post the content and are not responsible for it.

A person who published defamatory matter as a subordinate distributor (not the author, editor, or primary publisher) has a defence if they did not know and had no reason to know the matter was defamatory, and their lack of knowledge was not due to negligence.

Only corporations with fewer than 10 employees that are not related to another corporation can sue under the uniform defamation law. Larger corporations must rely on other causes of action such as injurious falsehood (which requires proof of malice and special damage).

The Australian uniform defamation law abolished the distinction between libel (written) and slander (spoken). All forms of publication — written, spoken, broadcast, online — are treated the same. The claimant does not need to prove special damage for spoken defamation.

Defamation litigation is expensive. Costs for a trial can range from $100,000 to $500,000 or more per party. Most defamation solicitors do not offer no-win no-fee arrangements. The losing party typically pays the winning party's costs, which increases the financial risk significantly.