The recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3) demonstrates that even the gravest of accusations may not meet the threshold of serious harm under defamation law.
Defamation actions include a ‘serious harm’ threshold that often enables respondents to more readily dispose of complaints that do not result in significant damage to the claimant’s reputation. The recent decision in Peros v Blackburn highlights one pitfall for parties defending defamation actions in seeking separate ‘serious harm’ hearings in the Federal Court, and raises whether the Federal Court Rules require amendment to better align with the defamation legislation of the states and territories.
The recent Queensland Court of Appeal case of Karageozis atf Bankrupt Estate of Lamb v Sherman [2023] QCA 258 provides useful clarification of the scope of protection from liability for defamation under the qualified privilege defence in the context of police complaints.
As of 1 July 2021, the last of the recent reforms to the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) came into effect, bringing Queensland’s defamation framework into line with the law in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
A recent court decision held that a business can be liable for defamatory comments made by the public on its Facebook page.