Defamation in Australia

Last updated

In Australia, defamation refers to the body of law that aims to protect individuals, groups, and entities from false or damaging statements that may cause harm to their reputation or standing in society. Australian defamation law is defined through a combination of common law and statutory law. Between 2014 and 2018, Australia earned the title of “world defamation capital”, recording 10 times as many libel claims as the UK on a per-capita basis. [1]

Contents

Australia's common law is nationally uniform, and so principles and remedies for defamation are broadly consistent across the States and Territories. However, the application of local statutes result in slight differences in application amongst those jurisdictions.

Background

Australia's defamation law emerged from English common law, but has since evolved in application though statute and judicial decisions. [2] To the extent Australia's system retains commonalities with English law, UK jurisprudence retains value as providing guidance to Australian courts. [2]

One key tension in Australia is a need for defamation law to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of an individual's reputation and values relating to free speech; as well as constitutional protections of political communication. Many of the complexities that arise from defamation proceedings are said to derive from judicial attempts to maintain that balance. [2] The decision of Lange v ABC is an example of a case where Australia's constitutional free speech protections were assessed in the context of a defamation proceeding.

Statutory reform

In 2005, the Australian states and territories agreed to adopt uniform defamation laws in order to promote consistency across jurisdictions. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] These laws came into effect on January 1, 2006, and have largely harmonized the defamation laws throughout Australia. However, some minor differences between jurisdictions remain, particularly in relation to procedural matters. One of the major outcomes of the reforms was that all defendants would be able to defend a defamation case on the basis of truth alone. Prior to the legislative changes, New South Wales and Tasmania required both truth and a public interest test for a defence to apply.

The uniform regime from 2005 has since been modified occasionally by Australia's States, usually in an agreed upon and uniform manner. In 2021, a 'serious harm' threshold test was introduced in all jurisdictions except Western Australia and the Northern Territory. [11] Additional reforms included a new public interest defence, a 'single publication rule' to address limitation period issues for material published online, limitations on damages for non-economic loss, and legal recognition of apologies made by a wrongful party. [11]

Proposed Defamation Reforms (2024)

Australia is set to undergo further significant changes to its defamation laws, with proposed reforms expected to commence on 1 January 2024. These amendments to the Defamation Act 2005 come in the wake of reforms that began on 1 July 2021. Recognizing the rapid technological advancements, especially the rise of social media and internet search engines, these reforms aim to modernize defamation laws. [12] Two landmark cases, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller & Ors [2021] HCA 27 [13] and Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, [14] highlighted the need for clearer laws regarding the liability of digital intermediaries in defamation. The proposed reforms introduce a new 'innocent dissemination' defense for intermediaries, such as search engines, that unintentionally host defamatory material. This defense is contingent upon the intermediary providing a mechanism for complaint submissions and adhering to it. Intermediaries can also offer "prevention steps" as a form of amends, which includes actions like removing or blocking the defamatory content.

Elements, defences, and remedies

For a defamation action to succeed in Australia, a plaintiff must be able to prove four (4) things: [15]

(1) The communication must have been published to a third party [Note 1]

(2) The communication must identify, or be about the plaintiff. [16] [Note 2]

(3) The communication must be defamatory.

(4) The plaintiff must prove that the publication has caused (or likely to cause) serious harm. [17]

The test for whether a communication is defamatory in Australia is: 'does the communication lower/harm the plaintiff's reputation, hold the plaintiff up to ridicule, or lead others to shun and avoid the plaintiff?' and is judged from the viewpoint of an 'ordinary reasonable people in the community in general' and in light of contemporary standards. [15] It is irrelevant whether this meaning is direct or implied.

Several defences are available to defamation actions in Australia. Some of these defences are grounded in statute, whereas others are common law defences. [18]

Defences available under the Defamation Act include: justification, contextual truth, absolute privilege, [Note 3] qualified privilege, [Note 4] fair report on proceedings of public concern, publication of matter concerning an issue of public interest, honest opinion, scientific or academic peer review, and innocent dissemination. A partial defence to liability is also available in instances where a defendant has offered an apology or to make amends. [18]

In addition to the statutory defences, common law defences include the Lange defence, [Note 5] consent, and the common law variant of justification. [18]

Remedies available if a defamation action is successfully pleaded include damages, injunctions, and in some instances an apology or retraction.

The Importance of a Defamation Concerns Notice

The uniform defamation laws in Australia, which aim to unify defamation legislation across the country, all mandate the submission of a concerns notice by an aggrieved party to the alleged defamer. This notice must detail the specific defamatory statements and the serious harm caused. [19]

The giving of a concerns notice is compulsory, and a pre-requisite to commencing defamation proceedings.  Section 12B(1) of the Defamation Act states:

(1) An aggrieved person cannot commence defamation proceedings unless—

(a) the person has given the proposed defendant a concerns notice in respect of the matter concerned; and

(b) the imputations to be relied on by the person in the proposed proceedings were particularised in the concerns notice; and

(c) the applicable period for an offer to make amends has elapsed.

An aggrieved person cannot commence defamation proceedings unless they have given the proposed defendant a concerns notice.

In Hooper v Catholic Family Services trading as Centacare Catholic Family Services [2023] FedCFamC2G 323, [20] the plaintiff’s defamation claim was dismissed due to the absence of a properly issued defamation concerns notice. As a consequence, the court, referencing the mandatory provisions of the Defamation Act, determined that Hooper had not met the necessary pre-filing requirements. This procedural non-compliance led to the summary dismissal of the defamation aspects of her claim.

The Court said at [85]:

In my view, the various deficiencies identified by Mr Ward, which can be summarised as follows … The failure to serve a concerns notice prior to institution of proceedings; and The failure to provide specifics of the actual defamatory imputations made against Ms Mannik and Ms Jones … are of such fatal moment to Ms Hooper’s defamation action that the only conclusion which is open to the Court is that these aspects of her claim have no prospects of success because of their incurable deficiencies.

It is vital that you do not commence proceedings without issuing a valid concerns notice.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Publication can occur in various forms, including written, spoken, or electronic communication.
  2. ↑ This does not necessarily require the explicit naming of the plaintiff, as long as a reasonable person could identify the plaintiff from the statement.
  3. ↑ Applies to statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings, or other protected occasions, where the maker of the statement cannot be held liable for defamation
  4. ↑ Applies when the defendant has a legal, moral, or social duty to publish the defamatory statement, and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it. This defence is defeated if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant acted with malice
  5. ↑ The impact of Australia's constitutional free speech protections is explained in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1997) 180 CLR 520

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

A summons is a legal document issued by a court or by an administrative agency of government for various purposes.

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Libel case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Although Australia is considered to have, in general, both freedom of speech and a free and independent media, certain subject-matter is subject to various forms of government censorship. These include matters of national security, judicial non-publication or suppression orders, defamation law, the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), film and literature classification, and advertising restrictions.

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

<i>Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation</i> 1997 Australian High Court case

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a High Court of Australia case that upheld the existence of an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution, but found that it did not necessarily provide a defence to a defamation action. The High Court extended the defence of qualified privilege to be compatible with the freedom of political communication.

A person who is found to have published a defamatory statement may evoke a defence of innocent dissemination, which absolves them of liability provided that they had no knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statement, and that their failure to detect the defamatory content was not due to negligence. The defence, sometimes also known as "mechanical distributor", is of concern to Internet Service Providers because of their potential liability for defamatory material posted by their subscribers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

<i>Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd</i> Leading English defamation case of 1999

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian defamation law</span> Commonwealth jurisdictions

Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<i>Grant v Torstar Corp</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Grant v Torstar Corp, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, 2009 SCC 61, is a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the defences to the tort of defamation. The Supreme Court ruled that the law of defamation should give way to the rights of a party to speak on matters of public interest, provided the party exercises a certain level of responsibility in verifying the potentially defamatory facts. This decision recognizes a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation Act 2013</span> United Kingdom law reforming defamation law in England & Wales

The Defamation Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which reformed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. It also comprised a response to perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to libel tourism and other inappropriate claims.

References

  1. ↑ "World's defamation capital no more? NSW passes reforms". Law Society Journal. 2020-08-24. Retrieved 2024-03-11.
  2. 1 2 3 "Defamation". www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  3. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).
  4. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (Vic).
  5. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (SA).
  6. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (NT).
  7. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (WA).
  8. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (Tas).
  9. ↑ Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
  10. ↑ Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Chapter 9.
  11. 1 2 "Commencement of major reforms to the Uniform Defamation Laws | Thomson Reuters". support.thomsonreuters.com.au. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  12. ↑ "Proposed Defamation Law Reforms Set to Significantly Impact Digital Sphere". BlackBay Lawyers. 2023-06-23. Retrieved 2023-08-21.
  13. ↑ "Rolph, David --- "Liability for the Publication of Third Party Comments: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller" [2021] SydLawRw 9; (2021) 43(2) Sydney Law Review 225". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2023-08-21.
  14. ↑ "Google v Defteros: Defamation Liability of Search Engines". University of Technology Sydney. 2022-09-30. Retrieved 2023-08-21.
  15. 1 2 Infosheet: Arts Law Centre of Australia 'DEFAMATION LAW' (Retrieved 7 May 2023)
  16. ↑ Universal Communication Network trading as New Tang Dynasty v Chinese Media Group (Aust) Pty Ltd and Chan [2008] NSWCA 1 , NSW Court of Appeal.
  17. ↑ Davis, Wayne. "Serious Harm Threshold in Defamation".
  18. 1 2 3 "Defamation". www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  19. ↑ Legal, Stonegate. "Sending a Concerns Notice in Defamation".
  20. ↑ "Hooper v Catholic Family Services trading as Centacare Catholic Family Services [2023] FedCFamC2G 323 (1 May 2023)". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.