Defamation law in Queensland has undergone significant changes since 2020. These reforms, introduced under the Model Defamation Amendment Provisions 2020 and implemented through the Defamation (Model Provisions) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (Qld), aim to balance the protection of reputations with freedom of speech. The changes are particularly relevant for individuals and organisations navigating issues of defamation, especially in the digital age, where content spreads rapidly. Understanding these changes is crucial to ensuring compliance with the law and protecting your rights.

Introduction of the Serious Harm Threshold

A key change to Queensland’s defamation law is the introduction of a serious harm threshold under section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). Plaintiffs must now prove that the defamatory material caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation. For corporations, serious financial loss must be demonstrated. This reform discourages trivial claims, ensuring that only significant matters proceed to court.

Public Interest Defence

A new public interest defence has been introduced under section 29A of the Act. This defence applies to publishers who can prove that the material concerned an issue of public interest and that they reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. This reform aligns Queensland’s defamation law with the modern emphasis on protecting responsible journalism and free speech on matters of genuine public concern.

Contextual Truth Defence

Amendments to section 30A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) clarify the contextual truth defence. Defendants can now rely on this defence even if they cannot prove the truth of all defamatory imputations, as long as the imputations they can prove substantially true negate the overall harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.

Mandatory Concerns Notices

Under section 12B, plaintiffs must now issue a concerns notice before commencing defamation proceedings. Defendants are given 28 days to respond, potentially resolving disputes without litigation. This change encourages early resolution and reduces unnecessary court cases.

Defamation in the Digital Age

While not directly part of the legislative changes, recent case law, such as Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, has further clarified the responsibilities of digital platforms in defamation cases. Queensland courts are increasingly addressing online defamation, reflecting the growing importance of these platforms in modern communication.

Cases

Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27

• In this case, the High Court of Australia considered whether Google could be held liable as a publisher for defamatory material linked through its search engine. The dispute arose after George Defteros, a criminal lawyer, discovered that a Google search for his name produced a hyperlink to a 2004 article by The Age, which implied he was associated with criminal activity. Defteros claimed this association was defamatory and brought action against Google.

The High Court ultimately ruled in favour of Google, overturning a previous decision from the Victorian Supreme Court. The Court determined that providing a hyperlink to a third-party article did not make Google a publisher of the material. It reasoned that merely facilitating access to the content did not amount to endorsing or participating in its publication. This decision significantly reduced the potential liability of internet platforms for defamation and clarified their role in disseminating third-party content.

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27

• This landmark decision dealt with whether media companies were liable for defamatory comments posted by third parties on their public Facebook pages. Dylan Voller, whose treatment in youth detention became a national controversy, alleged he was defamed by comments made by Facebook users on news articles about him posted by Fairfax Media, The Australian and Sky News Australia.

The High Court found that the media companies were ‘publishers’ of the comments because they had the capacity to monitor, hide or delete them. The Court emphasised that the companies encouraged interaction on their pages to generate engagement and could therefore be held liable for defamatory material posted by users. This case underscored the responsibilities of page administrators to moderate content actively, even when it is authored by third parties, reshaping how media entities manage their online platforms.

Seeking Advice

Navigating defamation law requires careful attention to detail and an understanding of the latest legal developments. At Harris Defamation, we offer expert legal advice tailored to your needs. Our fixed-fee consultations provide clarity on your options and the best course of action for your circumstances.

Conclusion

The changes to Queensland’s defamation law reflect the evolving landscape of communication and reputational protection. These reforms aim to balance freedom of expression with the right to protect one’s reputation, particularly in the digital age. If you are involved in a defamation matter, seeking legal advice is crucial to understanding your rights and obligations. Contact Harris Defamation to ensure your name and interests are safeguarded.