Defamation : is that a fly in my soup?

In a recent case the High Court considered whether a restaurant review was defamatory.

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.

Assessment of damages for defamation of business and personal reputation

An award of damages for defamation is to provide reparation for harm to a plaintiff’s reputation for the publication of defamatory material, compensate for any personal distress caused and vindicate the plaintiff’s reputation.1 Assessing such damages is recognised as a difficult task and perhaps the Queensland courts face further difficulties as there are few awards of damages for defamation in the state. This was pointed out in the recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd & Anor.2 This decision examined in detail the principles of assessing damages for defamation.

Gossip we can trust: Defamation law and non-fiction

Drawing on two case studies, this article considers the allegation of a disgruntled author: ’Defamation was framed to protect the reputations of 19th century gentlemen hypocrites'. The first case study considers the litigation over Bob Ellis' unreliable political memoir, ’Goodbye Jerusalem', published by Random House. The second case study focuses upon the litigation over the allegation by Media Watch that Richard Carleton had plagarised a documentary entitled ’Cry from the Grave'. The article considers the meaning of defamatory imputations, the range of defences, and the available remedies. It highlights the competing arguments over the protection of reputation and privacy, artistic expression, and the freedom of speech. This article concludes that defamation law should foster ’gossip we can trust'.

Defamation proceedings - Limitation of Actions Act 1974

In Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered for the first time the provision permitting extension of the limitation period for a defamation action under s32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

Griping, bitching and speaking your mind: defamation and free expression on the internet

Diane Rowland, Griping, Bitching and Speaking Your Mind: Defamation and Free Expression on the Internet, Pennsylvania State Law Review Symposium Issue 110, no. 3 (2006): 519?538; RAE2008

Free Expression and Defamation

Rowland Diane, Free Expression and Defamation, In: Human Rights in the Digital Age, (London: The Glasshouse Press), pp.55-70, 2005 RAE2008

Positive psychology and the demise of defamation

Defamation is one of the more complex and fluid areas of the law and varies considerably across the Australian jurisdictions. There are moves to unify defamation law. The threshold issue that is raised in any such process is whether there is in fact a justification for continuation of defamation law. Recent advances in happiness studies and positive psychology suggest that the chief interest protected by defamation law, reputation, is over-rated and is not in fact conducive to human well-being. What others think of us is not relevant to our well-being. Anecdotally it seems that people spend much time and energy in a bid to impress others in the hope that they will grow in the estimation of others and the world at large. Hence, the results of the studies into human well-being so far as reputation is concerned may appear counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, the studies are far more convincing than lay assumptions. People are often wrong about what is in their interests. This is recognised in the concept of regret. Individuals yearn for some things, but sometimes when they acquire them they discover that the journey was wasted. Reputation is one such thing. Defamation law perpetuates the myth that reputation is intrinsically important. Defamation should be abolished. In its place, a new cause of action should be introduced whereby damages are awardable for misleading and deceptive communications which cause damage to the individual who is the subject of the communication. This cause of action should be modelled on the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Resource units on intergroup relations : anti-defamation league of B'nai B'rith.

Mode of access: Internet.

The Defamation Act 2013 and CPR 3.4 and 24:a sting in causation’s tail

Examines the Court of Appeal judgment in Tesla Motors Ltd v BBC on whether the claim that a review of a vehicle on the BBC "Top Gear" programme constituted malicious falsehood should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) on the ground there was insufficient evidence to show that any loss in revenue suffered by the manufacturer was attributable to the review. Considers the implications of the decision for commercial claimants seeking to establish that defamation caused them "serious harm", which, pursuant to the Defamation Act 2013 s.1(2), requires evidence of actual or likely serious financial loss.

The value of corporate reputation and the Defamation Act 2013:a brave new world or road to ruin?

Questions whether the focus on freedom of expression under the Defamation Act 2013 could undermine the value of corporate reputation as a commercial asset.