Civil Law
-
This case note outlines Geoffrey Rush’s successful defamation action against Nationwide News over articles alleging inappropriate behaviour during a theatre production. The Federal Court found the publications conveyed defamatory imputations, rejected the truth defence, and awarded record damages. The case highlights how defamation law protects reputation, the limits of media reporting, and the role of the courts in ensuring fair and responsible journalism.
-
This case note outlines how Queensland courts assess negligence, using a the case of Thistle Co of Australia Pty Ltd v Bretz to show how duty of care, breach and foreseeable harm are applied in practice.
-
This case note outlines how the court found an employer negligent after a worker was seriously injured by a runaway street‑sweeper. The employer knew of earlier similar incidents but failed to improve training or safety systems. The Court held the worker was not contributorily negligent, as her instinctive attempt to prevent harm to others was reasonable in an emergency.
-
This case note outlines Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation action against media outlets over reporting of an alleged sexual assault. It explains the court’s assessment of credibility, the application of the “substantial truth” defence and how the judgment illustrates the balance between protecting reputation and allowing public‑interest journalism. The case highlights how defamation law operates when serious allegations intersect with political and media scrutiny.
-
This resource examines key defamation cases involving the public‑interest defence, showing how courts decide whether reporting on matters of public concern is protected. It explains the elements of the defence, how courts weigh responsible journalism against reputational harm, and why the defence is important for transparency, accountability and informed public debate.
-
This case note explains the defamation proceedings brought by Ben Roberts‑Smith against major media outlets over reporting that included allegations of murder and war crimes. It emphasises that the case was not a criminal trial, but a civil defamation action in which the court assessed whether the publishers could prove their allegations were substantially true. The resource outlines the court’s findings, the legal standards applied and the significance of the case for public‑interest journalism, accountability and the role of the courts in testing serious allegations.
Defamation and Public Interest
Following a series of high-profile massive payouts for defamation (see Rush case note ), new laws have been introduced to address some of the problems with the uniform defamation laws that apply throughout the nation. In NSW, these laws are contained in the Defamation Amendment Bill 2020 which was passed on 6 August 2020 and implement the nationally agreed changes to the law of defamation.
Special Forces Commando Heston Russell and ABC Defamation Case
July 2023
The public interest defence is a new defence for defamation law introduced in 2021 (see further details here). It has not been tested but any claims will come down to a question of reasonableness. Was it reasonable to present the material? If you look at the facts of the Russell Case, the source was not a witness to the allegation but heard something on the radio. Was this reasonable or the ABC to present this material?
Ben Roberts-Smith Defamation Case
June 2023
This decision is tragic for Australia, and it proves yet again if you are going to sue for defamation “you better line up all your ducks!”
William Duma and Australian Financial Review
February 2023
As written by Chris Merritt in the Australian (click here to read the whole article), the Australian Financial Review was ordered to pay $545,000 to the man it defamed: Papua New Guinea politician William Duma.
In the judgment, Federal Court Justice Anna Katzmann goes into excruciating detail about the journalistic methods of two AFR reporters, Angus Grigg and Jemima Whyte, who received leaked documents from confidential sources and wrote a series of articles about Duma and corruption in 2020. Grigg, the main author, contacted Duma before publication but Katzmann found Grigg’s emails had been misleading in important respects and the reporters “never invited him to respond to the allegations they intended to publish”. The judge considered it “improper, unjustifiable and lacking in bona fides” not to correct errors in the articles when they had been pointed out…
Because their articles contained “extremely serious defamatory imputations”, the judge believed they should have taken particular care to ensure the facts were fairly and accurately reported.
“The evidence disclosed they did no such thing,” the judgment says. “In several instances, and contrary to what was pleaded in the defence, the journalists testified that they did not believe that what they had written in the matters complained of was true. “In some instances, one or both of them conceded that statements they had made in the articles were not true,” the judgment says.
The media has complete control over something more decisive: its own procedures. When it comes to public interest journalism that means getting your facts right, getting the other side of the story, conducting yourself fairly and correcting errors promptly.
In the Duma case, none of those things happened at the Financial Review. That is why they lost. The newspaper did not seek to defend the truth of what it had published, choosing instead the defence of statutory qualified privilege which depended on proving that it had conducted itself reasonably.
That failed because, according to the judgement, the reporters concerned did not take proper steps to verify the accuracy of the material upon which they relied, and while they sought comment from Duma about some things they intended to publish “they initially misled him and did not fairly publish the substance of his responses”.
These failings matter because public interest journalism is vital to free societies. It is the institutional version of freedom of expression.”
Related Resources
-
This explainer outlines how social media has outpaced Australia’s defamation laws, creating uncertainty about who is legally responsible for online posts. It highlights key cases that expanded the definition of “publisher” and explains why law reform is needed to balance freedom of speech with protecting reputation in the digital age.
-
This poster outlines the key features of civil law, explaining how disputes between individuals and organisations are resolved through processes like negotiation, mediation and court action. It highlights the role of civil remedies, the standard of proof and how civil law protects rights, resolves conflicts and supports a fair and orderly society.
Explore Related Topics
-
Courts
Explore resources on courts, outlining the court hierarchy and providing Law Day Out materials that support classroom understanding through clear explanations, structured activities & examples of how courts operate.
-
Criminal Justice System
Explore how the criminal justice system works, alongside our complete library of crime case notes that illustrate these principles in practice through investigations, trials and outcomes.
-
What Is the Rule of Law
Explore resources explaining the rule of law, showing how a collection of principles works to limit government power and protect rights through clear rules, accountability and fairness.