April 2026 Queensland Supreme Court By Mark Stanarevic

Introduction

The offer to make amends procedure is one of the most important — and underused — mechanisms in Australian defamation law. Codified in Division 1 of Part 3 of the uniform Defamation Act 2005, it provides publishers with a structured pathway to resolve claims without the cost, delay, and uncertainty of litigation. Critically, where an offer is accepted and fulfilled, section 17(1) creates a complete statutory bar: the aggrieved person cannot assert, continue, or enforce a defamation action in relation to the matter.

The recent decision in McVicker v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 110, handed down by Bowskill CJ in the Queensland Supreme Court, provides authoritative guidance on how this statutory bar operates in practice — and serves as a cautionary tale for plaintiffs who accept an offer, allow it to be fulfilled, and then attempt to revive their claim.

Background and Facts

Robert McVicker commenced defamation proceedings against Nine Digital Pty Ltd arising from three publications on the defendant's 9Finance and A Current Affair websites concerning the collapse of the online travel agency Bestjet. The articles were published in late 2018 and early 2019.

Following the service of a concerns notice, Nine Digital made an offer to make amends. The offer included the following terms:

  • Removal of the three allegedly defamatory articles from the 9Finance and A Current Affair websites;
  • Publication of a correction in agreed terms on both websites for a minimum period of 60 days;
  • Payment of Mr McVicker's reasonably incurred legal costs.

Mr McVicker, through his solicitors, accepted the offer. Nine Digital then removed the offending articles, published the correction on both the 9Finance and ACA websites, and paid costs. Notwithstanding this, Mr McVicker subsequently sought to revive defamation proceedings, contending that Nine Digital had not properly fulfilled the terms of the accepted offer — in particular, that the correction was not published with sufficient prominence.

The Separate Questions

Nine Digital's solicitors, Thomson Geer, applied under rule 483 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for four questions to be determined separately before any further hearing. An order to that effect was made on 5 June 2024. The critical questions were:

  1. Whether the settlement offer accepted by the plaintiff was an offer to make amends within the meaning of Division 1, Part 3 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld);
  2. Whether the agreement formed by acceptance of that offer constituted an accord and satisfaction;
  3. Whether the defendant had carried out the terms of the accepted offer so as to engage the section 17(1) statutory bar;
  4. Whether the plaintiff was barred from asserting, continuing, or enforcing his defamation action.

The Decision

Bowskill CJ answered all four questions in favour of Nine Digital. The key findings were as follows.

The offer was an offer to make amends

The Court confirmed that the settlement offer met the requirements of section 15 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). It included an offer to publish a reasonable correction and to pay the aggrieved person's reasonably incurred legal costs — the two mandatory elements of an effective offer to make amends.

Contractual construction applied

The agreement formed by Mr McVicker's acceptance of the offer was to be construed objectively, by reference to text, context, and purpose, in accordance with the approach in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104. This is a significant point: offers to make amends, once accepted, form a binding agreement, and disputes about compliance are resolved using ordinary principles of contractual construction rather than any special defamation-law standard.

The correction was published "on" both websites

The central dispute concerned whether Nine Digital had published the correction "on the 9Finance website and A Current Affair website" as agreed. Mr McVicker argued that the correction was not given sufficient prominence. The evidence showed that:

  • The correction was published at unique URLs on both the 9Finance and ACA websites;
  • It was discoverable via homepage tiles (promotional links) that appeared on the homepages of both websites;
  • The homepage tiles were displayed for approximately 24 to 48 hours before cycling through as newer content was published;
  • The correction itself remained live at its dedicated URL for well in excess of the agreed 60-day minimum.

Bowskill CJ held that the agreed term was publication "on" the websites — not "on the homepage of" the websites. The correction was clearly published on both websites as agreed. The fact that promotional tiles on the homepage were eventually displaced by newer content did not mean the correction had not been properly published.

Distinguished from Hafertepen v Network Ten

The Court distinguished the facts from Hafertepen v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1456, in which the Federal Court found that a correction was insufficiently published because it was "buried" in an obscure location on the publisher's website. In contrast, the McVicker correction was accessible, published at dedicated URLs, and linked from the homepage via tiles in a manner consistent with standard online publishing practices.

The statutory bar was engaged

Having found that Nine Digital had carried out all terms of the accepted offer — removal of articles, publication of correction, payment of costs — the Court held that section 17(1) applied. Mr McVicker was barred from asserting, continuing, or enforcing his defamation action.

Delay in raising complaint

The Court also noted that Mr McVicker's solicitors waited 79 days after the correction was published before raising any issue with compliance. This substantial delay undermined the credibility of the complaint about prominence and supported the inference that the correction had been published in accordance with the parties' objective understanding of the agreement.

The Statutory Framework: Sections 14 to 19

For practitioners unfamiliar with the offer to make amends procedure, the statutory framework operates as follows:

  • Section 14: A publisher may make an offer to make amends within 28 days of receiving a concerns notice, or within 14 days of receiving further particulars.
  • Section 15: An offer must include a reasonable correction and payment of the aggrieved person's reasonably incurred costs. It may also include an apology, removal of the defamatory material, and compensation.
  • Section 17(1): If a publisher carries out the terms of an accepted offer (including payment of any compensation), the aggrieved person cannot assert, continue, or enforce a defamation action. This is a complete statutory bar.
  • Section 18: If the offer is not accepted, the publisher may rely on the fact of having made a reasonable offer as a defence to the action.
  • Section 19: Statements or admissions made in connection with an offer to make amends are not admissible in evidence.

The procedure is available in all Australian jurisdictions under the uniform legislation. The time limits are strict, and failure to comply with section 14 timing requirements can deprive a publisher of the statutory defence under section 18.

Practical Implications

The McVicker decision carries several important lessons for both publishers and aggrieved persons.

For publishers and media organisations

  • Use the procedure: The offer to make amends is a powerful tool. Where a publisher has a genuine desire to resolve a claim, a properly structured offer under Part 3 can lead to a complete statutory bar — or, if not accepted, a defence under section 18.
  • Document compliance meticulously: Nine Digital succeeded in part because it could demonstrate precisely where, when, and how the correction was published. Publishers should retain screenshots, server logs, and viewership data showing that corrections were published as agreed.
  • Distinguish between "website" and "homepage": The Court's finding that publication "on" a website does not require permanent homepage placement is significant. However, if an aggrieved person wants homepage prominence, they should negotiate for that term explicitly.

For plaintiffs and their solicitors

  • Negotiate precise terms: Before accepting an offer, ensure the agreed terms are specific about the location, prominence, duration, and format of any correction. Vague language invites the kind of dispute seen in McVicker.
  • Inspect compliance promptly: Mr McVicker's 79-day delay in raising concerns about the correction's prominence weakened his position significantly. If a correction is not published as agreed, raise the issue immediately — not months later.
  • Understand the finality of section 17(1): Once an offer is accepted and fulfilled, the statutory bar is absolute. There is no residual right to claim that the publisher acted in bad faith or that the correction was inadequate. The time to ensure adequacy is before acceptance, not after.

For legal practitioners generally

  • The decision confirms that accepted offers to make amends are construed as contracts, using orthodox contractual construction principles. Practitioners should draft and negotiate these agreements with the same rigour applied to any commercial settlement.
  • The distinction between McVicker and Hafertepen turns on accessibility: a correction that is reasonably discoverable and published at a dedicated URL will satisfy the obligation, whereas one that is buried or hidden may not.

How Matrix Legal Can Help

Whether you are a publisher responding to a concerns notice or an individual considering whether to accept an offer to make amends, the stakes are high. An accepted offer, once fulfilled, permanently extinguishes the right to sue. An improperly structured offer can leave a publisher exposed.

At Matrix Legal, Mark Stanarevic advises on every stage of the offer to make amends process — from drafting and responding to concerns notices, to negotiating the terms of offers, to enforcing the section 17(1) statutory bar. If you have received a concerns notice or an offer to make amends, or if you are considering commencing defamation proceedings, contact us for a confidential assessment of your position.

This article is general information and not legal advice. Defamation risk turns on the precise words used, the publication context, the audience, and available evidence.