Something false has been published about you. Here is what can be done.

What a plaintiff must prove

Defamation is a civil claim for damage to reputation. Across Australia the plaintiff must establish the same core elements, and in every jurisdiction other than Western Australia a fourth element, serious harm, now sits alongside them.

Falsity is not something the plaintiff has to prove. Once the imputations are shown to be defamatory, it is for the publisher to prove that they are substantially true, or to establish another defence. That is why the exact words, and the meanings they carry, matter so much. Much of the early work in a plaintiff matter is considering imputations that are both genuinely conveyed by the publication and difficult to defend.

Serious harm is decided by a judge and can be dealt with early, before the rest of the case. A publication to a handful of people that was quickly removed or corrected may fail to satisfy this element even though it was false and hurtful. A publication that is still online, that has been seen by customers, employers or a professional community, may cause serious harm.

Who can sue

Any living individual who has been defamed can bring a claim, as can a limited class of corporations, including:

• Individuals, including sole traders, partners, directors and employees who were personally identified.
• Small corporations with fewer than 10 employees that are not part of a larger corporate group.
• Not for profit corporations, such as incorporated associations and charities, provided the publication caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss.

Companies are a different matter. Under the uniform legislation most corporations cannot sue for defamation at all. The exceptions are not for profit corporations and corporations that employ fewer than 10 people and are not related to another corporation.

Companies with 10 or more employees, companies related to another corporation, and public bodies such as councils and government agencies cannot sue for defamation. That does not mean they are without remedies. Injurious falsehood and misleading or deceptive conduct are often available to a business that has been targeted by false statements, and the individual owners or staff named in the publication may have their own claims. There is also no claim for defaming a deceased person.

Remedies

What a plaintiff can realistically achieve depends on how far the matter goes. Most are resolved without a court order, and the outcomes at that stage are negotiated rather than imposed.

Injunctions restraining publication before trial are granted sparingly, because courts are reluctant to restrain speech before the defences have been tested. Where the publication is anonymous, orders requiring a platform or internet provider to disclose who is behind an account are available and are often the necessary first step.

The concerns notice

In every state and territory other than Western Australia, a plaintiff cannot commence defamation proceedings without first giving the publisher a concerns notice and waiting for the applicable period to pass (normally 28 days). The notice is more than a letter of demand. To be valid it must be in writing and must:

• specify where the publication can be accessed, for example the URL, and attach a copy if practicable;
• set out the defamatory imputations the plaintiff says the publication carries;
• describe the harm the plaintiff considers to be serious harm to their reputation, and for an excluded corporation the serious financial loss.

Only imputations particularised in the notice can later be relied on in proceedings. If the notice does not adequately particularise them, the publisher can ask for further particulars within the 28 day period, and the plaintiff has 14 days to provide them. The publisher then has 28 days from the notice, or 14 days from receiving the further particulars if that is later, to make an offer to make amends. Proceedings cannot be commenced until that period has passed, except with the leave of the court in limited circumstances.

A poorly drafted concerns notice can end a claim before it starts. Proceedings commenced on a defective notice are liable to be dismissed, and if the limitation period has passed in the meantime there may be no second chance. In Western Australia a concerns notice remains optional, but the law of the place of publication governs, so a Western Australian plaintiff suing over material published elsewhere must still comply.

Time limits

Proceedings must generally be commenced within one year of the date of publication. For material published online, time runs from the date it was first uploaded, not from the date it was discovered, and under the single publication rule later downloads of the same material by the same publisher do not restart the clock. A fresh publication by someone else, or a materially different republication, can.

The court can extend the limitation period to a maximum of three years from publication where it is satisfied that it is just and reasonable to do so. Extensions are not routine and the reasons for the delay will be examined. Where a concerns notice is given shortly before the one year period expires, the limitation legislation extends the period by a short time (up to 56 days) so that the 28 day process can be completed.

Common situations

Online reviews

Reviews on Google, Facebook, ProductReview and industry sites are the most common source of enquiries. A review that states false facts, such as that a tradesperson did not turn up or a practitioner behaved improperly, can be defamatory. A review that is recognisably the reviewer's opinion on a matter of public interest, based on facts that are stated or well known, is often protected by the defence of honest opinion. The first task is working out which side of the line the review sits on.

Social media and group chats

Posts, comments, stories and messages to community groups are all publications. Administrators of pages and groups can be liable for comments by others in some circumstances, and screenshots that are shared on can be fresh publications. Evidence disappears quickly, so preserving it is the first step.

Workplaces, committees and clubs

Allegations made in complaints, references, board papers and committee meetings are frequently published to others. Many of these communications attract qualified privilege, which protects a publisher who had a duty or interest in making the statement to a recipient with a corresponding interest. That defence is lost if the publisher was actuated by malice, and the facts of how and why the statement was made matter a great deal.

Anonymous publishers

Where the author of a review or account cannot be identified, the usual path is a request to the platform followed, if necessary, by an application for preliminary discovery requiring the platform or internet provider to disclose the account holder's details. The limitation period does not stop while that happens.

Media

News reports, podcasts and broadcasts raise the defences of public interest, fair report and honest opinion more squarely than other publications. The defence of publication of matter concerning an issue of public interest, introduced in 2021, looks at whether the publisher reasonably believed publication was in the public interest, and the courts have now considered it in several cases. These matters are rarely resolved quickly, and early advice on prospects is especially important.

What to send us

The more we can see before the consultation, the more useful the consultation is. Where you can, send:

• the publication itself: screenshots showing the date, the author and any visible reactions or comments, or a recording, together with the name of the website or platform where it appeared;
• roughly when it was first published and how you found out about it;
• who you believe published it and whether you know them;
• what has happened since: lost work, cancelled contracts, messages from people who saw it, or a change in the way people have treated you;
• any correspondence already exchanged with the publisher or the platform;
• anything that bears on truth, such as documents that show the allegation is false.

Do not contact the publisher, post a response or ask others to intervene before you have taken advice. Public responses can repeat the imputation to a wider audience, and private contact can later be characterised as a threat or, worse, as a concession.

If defamation does not fit

Not every damaging publication is actionable as defamation. Companies that cannot sue, publications that are substantially true, and material that has not caused serious harm all fall outside it. Other remedies may still be available:

• Injurious falsehood, where false statements were published maliciously and caused actual financial loss. There is no cap on damages and no limit on who can sue, but malice and loss must be proved.
• Misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, where the publication was made in trade or commerce.
• Breach of confidence, and since June 2025 the statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy, where private information has been disclosed or privacy has been intruded on.
• Platform complaints and reporting mechanisms, including to the eSafety Commissioner for certain online abuse.
• Harassment, intervention or protection orders where the conduct is ongoing.

Part of the initial consultation is working out which of these, if any, offers a better path than a defamation claim. Sometimes the answer is a combination.

Further reading

The articles below go into more depth on the topics covered on this page.

• What is defamation? The elements of a claim
• The serious harm element
• Who can sue for defamation
• Concerns notices: what they must contain
• Time limits in defamation
• Damages in defamation and the cap
• Online reviews and defamation
• Suing an anonymous publisher