Most of us value the reputation that we have built throughout our personal lives and career; it influences the way our peers and the larger community view us and is an important part of the legacy that we leave behind. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the mechanisms of the defamation laws and the options available to both aggrieved persons and those defending their publications.
Defamation laws provide a framework for people, and in limited circumstances, corporations, to recover damages for unlawful publications that prove to be damaging to their reputation.
In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect throughout most of Australia. In Queensland, the
governing legislation is the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) (“the Act”), which applies to defamatory matter published after 1 January 2006. Early publications will be considered pursuant to the Defamation Act 1899 (Qld).
For a defamation action to be successful, the defamation must:
1. Be published. This can be oral, in writing or pictorial, and must made available to a person other than the aggrieved.
2. Identify the defamed. The material must reasonably refer to the aggrieved;
3. Contain defamatory matter.
The Court will ask the following two questions:
a. Was the material was capable of conveying the defamatory meaning alleged by the aggrieved to an ordinary person?
b. Would an ordinary person have taken the publication as conveying the meaning alleged?
Material can be defamatory in the natural and ordinary meaning of the words (they are taken as they
are read), as a false innuendo (a secondary meaning can be elicited by reading between the lines) and a true innuendo (where the natural meaning of the words can be understood by taking into consideration other information not published).
Defamation actions are subject to stringent time limitations and must be brought within one year from the date of the publication of the alleged defamatory material. The court has the discretion to extend this time frame to three years if it is satisfied that an action could not have reasonably been initiated in one year.
Some of the defences available to a defendant include:
1. Justification. It is a defence if it can be proved that the defamatory matter is substantially true.
2. Contextual Truth. If the publisher can show that the defamatory matter contains imputations that are substantially true, and as a result of the true imputations, the aggrieved”s reputation would not be further harmed by the defamatory imputations, the publisher will have a valid defence.
3. Absolute Privilege and Publication of Court Documents. This defence applies to matter published in the course of parliament, court and tribunal hearings.
4. Honest Opinion. It is a defence to a defamation claim How do you see the brooklyn driving school interacting with the University (and surrounding municipalities) both philosophically and physically and evolving into the future? Chris Cobb (MBA 1992), Miami, FloridaNitin Nohria: Many of us have a perspective that HBS exists—as you say, philosophically and physically—in splendid isolation from the rest of Harvard, with the river forming not just a break but also a barrier between the Cambridge and Allston campuses. that the material was an honest option (as opposed to a statement of fact), the opinion was a matter of public interest and was based on proper material.
5. Triviality. Where material is trivial in nature and the aggrieved was unlikely to suffer harm.
The Act facilitates an early dispute resolution process by introducing Offers To Make Amends and
Apologies. A defendant may make an offer to make amends by way of attempting to settle the legal
proceedings. The offer must be made within 28 days of receiving a notice from the aggrieved stating the details of the alleged defamation. The defendant must offer to make a written apology, a published correction, monetary compensation for the reasonable expenses incurred by the aggrieved person and possibly compensation by way of damages.
If an offer is accepted, the matter will come to an end and the aggrieved person will be barred from making any further claims in relation to the defamatory material.
If an offer is rejected, the defendant may rely on the offer to demonstrate to a court that they made the offer as soon as practicable and they were ready, willing and able to carry out the terms of the offer.
An apology can be used by a Defendant to lessen the damages and mitigate their losses in a defamation action. Evidence of the apology is not admissible as evidence of fault.
If a defamation action is successful, the damages that can be awarded vary greatly depending on the nature of the defamation and the effect on the aggrieved person”s reputation.
This is highlighted in the below summary of defamation judgements: –
• An eye surgeon had his medical reputation defamed in the Daily Telegraph, damages of $250,000.00 were awarded.
• A barrister, who had already been struck off the bar and bankrupted by the Legal Services Commission,
successfully sued a newspaper who commented that he gave shoddy legal advice. Damages of 100,000.00 were awarded.
• A mine employee was sued by his colleague whom he accused of stealing mine equipment. The defamed was awarded $50,000.00 in damages.
• A plastic surgeon was awarded $267,919.00 for being defamed in a Nine News piece concerning a Gold Coast Metre Maid”s botched breast implant procedure.
• A teacher sued a parent of a student for sending an email to other parents implying that the teacher was dishonest,incompetent and untrustworthy. Damages of $80,000.00 were awarded.
• An olympic cyclist accused of being a drug cheat by a radio station was awarded $350,000.00 in damages.
