In your state, you are required to confirm you wish to access this information. Please enter 'QLD' or 'WA' in the field below to continue.

No thanks

Defamation decisions around Australia

gavel-and-scales

Peter Coggins Written by:
Peter Coggins
National Manager - Professional Negligence

Australia’s defamation laws are there to protect individuals from offensive and slanderous publications, but this is no easy task. There is no hard and fast rule on what amounts to defamation, and a lot depends on the circumstances of each case. We take a look at some recent cases from around Australia to shed some light on this dynamic area of law.

NEW SOUTH WALES | Tailor’s gunrunning reputation mended

Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 283

Mr Tony Zoef brought a case for defamation against Nationwide News, for publications that claimed he had an alter ego as a gunrunner. The article referred to charges against Mr Zoef for holding a large quantity of weapons at his premises. However, it was Mr Zoef’s son who was actually the one charged.

At first, Mr Zoef’s claim failed on the ground that he failed because he did not accept the newspaper’s offer of amends. Nationwide News were willing to publish an apology in the same newspaper, and pay Mr Zoef $20,000 plus his legal costs.

Under New South Wales defamation law, if an offer to make amends is made but not accepted, it can later be used in the defence provided the offer was reasonable (among other things). In this case, the judge found the publisher’s offer was reasonable for a range of reasons, including that Mr Zoef had tried to accept the offer after it expired.

Mr Zoef challenged this decision and took his case to the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the seriousness of the gunrunner allegations, and the damage caused to Mr Zoef’s business and reputation meant that the newspaper’s offer was not in fact reasonable. The original decision was overturned, and Mr Zoef was awarded $150,000 in damages.

newspaper-stack

WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Gruff, routinely insulting and blokey style identifies publisher

Douglas v McLernon [No. 4] [2016] WASC 320

Mr Douglas, Mr Billis, and Mr Matich brought a defamation action against Mr McLernon and Mr Fitzgerald because of articles Mr McLernon published online. Mr Fitzgerald was included as they believed he was providing web hosting services to Mr McLernon.

The articles made accusations that Mr Douglas:

  • Threatened innocent women and children through the internet
  • Knowingly associated with a notoriously corrupt police officer, and
  • Had been convicted of a series of criminal offences and was part of crime gang.

The articles also made similar allegations against Mr Billis and Mr Matich.

The court found in the plaintiffs’ favour and awarded Mr Douglas and Mr Billis $ 250,000 each, while Mr Matich was awarded $ 200,000. However, the action against Mr Fitzgerald failed, as they could not establish Mr Fitzgerald participated in the publications.

QUEENSLAND | Dennis Denuto comparison caused no harm

Smith v Lucht [2016] QCA 267

Mr Smith, a Solicitor, was helping Mr Lucht’s former partner, whom Mr Smith was related to, in a child access dispute. Mr Lucht referred to Mr Smith as “Dennis Denuto” in written and verbal exchanges. Dennis Denuto is a fictional, incompetent lawyer in the movie The Castle. Although the exchanges were only seen and heard by Mr Smith’s relatives, he asserted that Mr Lucht defamed him

The trial judge found a reasonable reader or listener would understand the words “Dennis Denuto” to include the assertion that Mr Smith was incompetent and unprofessional.

Despite this, the case was ultimately unsuccessful. The judge found the comments were trivial and Mr Smith suffered no discernible harm to his reputation. The comments were made to a very small audience of family members, none of whom found the reference to be defamatory.

VICTORIA | ‘Professional’ strip-club operator vindicated 

Hardie v Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 103

Ms Hardie sued the Herald Sun and a journalist for defamation after a newspaper, online articles and a radio segment discussed her ownership and management of a strip club in Shepparton, Victoria. She argued the defamatory assertions were:

  • Her venue was attended by bikies
  • She was a brothel madam (they constantly referred to her as Madam Black Mercedes), and
  • Her venue was a place where police tipped off bikies to hinder police investigations.

At trial, she was awarded $90,000 for the defamatory comments about her venue being a place where police tipped off bikies. The other allegations were dismissed as non-defamatory, but Ms Hardie and The Herald Sun both appealed the decision.

The Appeal Court found in Ms Hardie’s favour and awarded her $ 250,000 in damages. The court said the police tip-off allegation and the ‘Madam Black Mercedes’ reference were both defamatory and damaging to her personal and professional reputation.

Shine Lawyers – Defamation expertise

Defamatory publications can have negative impacts on both your personal and professional life, but the law is there to protect your reputation. At Shine Lawyers, we have a team of defamation lawyers who can provide you with expert advice on your particular case. So if you or a loved one has been the subject of defamatory comments, get in touch today and protect your reputation.

Related content:

Written by Peter Coggins on . Last modified: September 25, 2017.

Join the discussion

Share this article:

There are 0 comments. Be the first!

Same-sex marriage: How to express your opinion without breaking the law

After the Australian High Court recently handed down its blessing for the Australian Marriage Law Postal survey to proceed, it is expected that both sides of the debate will intensify their campaigning to garner public support. With the survey being voluntary, both sides will be competing for publicity and media attention for their cause, aiming […]

Read more

Damages for defamation: Rebel Wilson case study

Australian actress Rebel Wilson has today been awarded $4.5 million in damages for defamation arising from Bauer Media’s publications, in which it portrayed Ms Wilson as a ‘liar’ in relation to her age and upbringing. In June 2017, a jury found the publications were defamatory and today, the judge handed down his decision with respect to […]

Read more

Defamation on Facebook: Seven steps to protect your reputation

Every week, Shine Lawyers’ National Defamation practice receives multiple enquiries from people impacted by defamatory comments on Facebook; and the numbers are going up. Our right to free speech Many individuals are under the impression that under Australian law, we have an overarching right to free speech, and this right protects those who makes offensive […]

Read more

What constitutes defamation?

What is defamation? Defamation is when a person says slanderous things that may cause damage to another’s reputation. Common defamatory comments include: Accusations that someone has committed a crime Accusations that someone has a disease Accusations that someone is conducting fraudulent activities If the defamatory comments are written or published, this is called libel. Verbal or […]

Read more

Call Us Now

Our friendly consultants are available to talk Monday to Friday, 8:15am to 6:00pm AEST.

1800 618 851

Live Chat

Chat with Shine Lawyers through the livechat system without leaving your computer. No downloading, completely private and best of all - its easy to use.

Start a live chat now

Enquire Now

Enquire now