Defamation Law FAQs

Defamation is the publication of matter that conveys a defamatory imputation about an identifiable person to a third party, thereby damaging that person's reputation. A defamatory imputation is one that tends to lower a person in the estimation of reasonable members of the community — for example, by portraying them as dishonest, criminal, incompetent, or morally objectionable.

Since the 2021 reforms, plaintiffs must also satisfy the serious harm threshold under s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005: the publication must have caused, or be likely to cause, serious harm to the plaintiff's reputation. Australian defamation law is governed by the Defamation Act 2005 as enacted in each Australian state and territory.

The cost of a defamation matter varies depending on complexity, how early the matter resolves, and whether proceedings are commenced. Many matters resolve at an early stage — following a concerns notice, negotiated removal, or mediation — at relatively modest cost. Matters that proceed to a full trial in the Federal Court or Supreme Court can involve substantial costs.

Matrix Legal provides a free initial case assessment and offers flexible fee arrangements. Costs are discussed transparently at the outset so you know exactly what to expect.

The limitation period for defamation in Australia is one year from the date of publication (s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) and equivalent provisions). This period is strictly enforced — once it expires, the right to sue is lost unless the court grants an extension in exceptional circumstances.

For online publications, the single publication rule under s 10AA of the Defamation Act 2005 means the limitation period runs from the original date of posting. Do not delay — seek specialist advice as soon as you become aware of a potentially defamatory publication.

Yes. Australian defamation law applies fully to publications on social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, TikTok, and any other online platform. The same elements apply — a false statement of fact, publication to a third party, identification, and serious harm to reputation.

The fact that the defendant posts anonymously or under a pseudonym does not prevent a claim. Australian courts have mechanisms to compel platforms to disclose the identity of anonymous publishers. See our Online Defamation guide for more information.

A concerns notice is a formal written notice served on the publisher of allegedly defamatory matter before defamation proceedings can be commenced. It is a mandatory pre-litigation step under s 12A of the Defamation Act 2005 (introduced by the 2020 reforms). The notice must identify the defamatory matter, specify the imputations conveyed, and describe the harm caused or likely to be caused to the plaintiff's reputation.

The defendant then has 28 days to make an offer to make amends. If no acceptable offer is made, proceedings may be commenced. See our dedicated Concerns Notice guide for full details.

The serious harm threshold is a mandatory element of every defamation claim in Australia, introduced by the Defamation Amendment Act 2020 and contained in s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005. A plaintiff cannot commence or maintain defamation proceedings unless the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.

For eligible corporations (those with fewer than 10 employees), the threshold requires proof of serious financial loss. The Federal Court confirmed in Singh v Singh [2025] FCA 1531 that the threshold requires positive evidence of actual or likely harm — assertion alone is insufficient. See our Serious Harm Threshold guide for a detailed analysis.

Only if it is an "excluded corporation" under s 9(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 — that is, a corporation that employed fewer than 10 persons at the time of publication and was not related to a corporate group employing 10 or more persons. Large corporations and their related entities cannot sue for defamation.

For eligible small business corporations, the serious harm threshold requires proof of serious financial loss — a more specific and typically higher test than the general serious harm standard for individuals. Even where a corporation cannot sue, the individual business owner may be able to bring a personal claim.

The principal defences under the Defamation Act 2005 are:

• Justification (truth) — the defendant proves the defamatory imputations were substantially true (s 25).
• Honest opinion — the matter was a genuine expression of opinion, based on proper material, on a matter of public interest (s 31).
• Public interest — introduced by the 2020 reforms, protecting publications on matters of public interest made reasonably (s 29A).
• Qualified privilege — publications made where the publisher had a duty to publish and the recipient a corresponding interest in receiving the information (s 30).
• Absolute privilege — statements made in parliamentary or judicial proceedings (s 27).
• Innocent dissemination — available to secondary publishers who had no reason to know of the defamatory content (s 32).

Australian courts have the power to make suppression orders or non-publication orders to protect a plaintiff's identity in appropriate cases, under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (Cth) and equivalent State legislation. However, defamation proceedings are generally conducted in open court and courts are reluctant to grant anonymity unless there are compelling reasons — such as genuine safety concerns or circumstances where disclosure would itself cause the harm the proceedings are designed to remedy.

The question of whether a suppression order may be available should be discussed with a specialist lawyer at the outset of a matter.

Damages in Australian defamation proceedings may include:

• General damages — for harm to reputation and hurt feelings. The statutory cap on general damages is approximately $459,000 (as indexed from 2021).
• Aggravated damages — awarded in addition to general damages where the defendant's conduct was malicious or has exacerbated the harm.
• Special damages — for specific economic losses caused by the publication, such as lost business or lost employment. Special damages are uncapped and can exceed general damages significantly in appropriate cases. In Rush v Nationwide News [2019] FCA 496, special damages of approximately $1.98 million were awarded.

Many defamation matters resolve within weeks or months of a concerns notice being served, through negotiated apology, retraction, removal, and/or payment of damages. Where proceedings are commenced, a matter in the Federal Court or Supreme Court may take 12–36 months or longer to reach trial, depending on complexity and court availability.

Interlocutory applications — such as applications for injunctions or preliminary discovery — can be heard on much shorter timeframes. In urgent cases, an injunction can sometimes be obtained within days of filing.

Yes — strongly. Defamation law is highly technical and fact-specific. The 2020 and 2021 reforms have added significant procedural requirements (concerns notice, serious harm threshold, public interest defence) that require specialist knowledge to navigate correctly. An ineffective concerns notice can undermine an otherwise strong claim. A poorly particularised claim may fail at the serious harm threshold.

Matrix Legal specialises in defamation law, with over 10 years of specialist experience and hundreds of successful matters across the Federal Court and all Australian Supreme Courts. The lawyer other lawyers call for defamation matters.

Yes. Australian courts can grant interlocutory injunctions requiring a defendant to remove defamatory content or cease further publication, pending the outcome of proceedings. The applicant must demonstrate a serious question to be tried, that damages would be inadequate, and that the balance of convenience favours the order.

Courts can also grant mandatory injunctions requiring a defendant to take positive steps — such as deleting a post or taking down a webpage. In urgent cases, injunctions can be obtained within 24–48 hours on an ex parte basis (without notifying the defendant) where there is a real risk that notification would cause the defendant to destroy evidence or accelerate the harm.

Historically, defamation law distinguished between libel (defamation in permanent form, such as writing or broadcasting) and slander (defamation in transient form, primarily spoken words). Under the Defamation Act 2005, this distinction has been largely abolished in Australia — the Act uses the single term "defamation" and applies to all forms of publication, including spoken words, writing, images, broadcasts, and online content.

In practical terms, if someone has made a false and damaging statement about you — regardless of the medium — Australian defamation law potentially applies.

Yes. Justification (truth) is a complete defence to a defamation claim under s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005. If the defendant can prove on the balance of probabilities that the defamatory imputations conveyed by the publication were substantially true, the claim fails entirely.

The burden of proving truth rests on the defendant — a significant protection for plaintiffs compared to some other common law jurisdictions. A defendant who cannot prove the truth of their statements cannot rely on justification as a defence, even if they genuinely believed what they published.

You have several options, which can be pursued in parallel:

1. Report the review to Google through Google Business Profile and request removal under Google's review policies.
2. Instruct a specialist defamation lawyer to send a formal legal demand to Google and the reviewer (where identity is known).
3. Apply to the Federal Court for preliminary discovery orders compelling Google to disclose the reviewer's account information and IP logs.
4. Once identified, serve a concerns notice on the reviewer and commence proceedings if necessary.
5. Seek an injunction requiring Google to remove the review and the reviewer to cease publication.

Matrix Legal has obtained landmark Federal Court orders against Google. See our Google Review Defamation guide for detailed information.

Section 10AA of the Defamation Act 2005 provides that, for the purposes of the one-year limitation period, an online publication is treated as a single publication occurring on the date the content was first made available. The limitation period does not restart each time a person accesses the content. This was introduced by the 2020 reforms to address the problem of the limitation period never expiring for content that remained continuously accessible online.

The single publication rule is a limitation rule only — it does not restrict the damages recoverable for the full period during which defamatory content was accessible, and it does not apply where content is materially altered or re-published in a manner that brings it to the attention of a new audience.

Yes. Under the principle established in Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, a defamatory publication occurs where it is downloaded and read — meaning that content accessible to Australian readers is published in Australia, regardless of where the publisher is located or where the server is situated.

Australian courts have jurisdiction over foreign defendants in such cases, and process can be served overseas through applicable international instruments. Enforcement of Australian judgments in some foreign jurisdictions can present practical challenges, but many matters involving overseas defendants resolve without foreign enforcement proceedings — particularly where the defendant has a presence or assets in Australia, or where a platform voluntarily complies with court orders.

Matrix Legal provides a free initial case assessment for all new matters — there is no charge for your first consultation. At the assessment, Mark will give you an honest evaluation of the merits of your matter and the realistic range of outcomes.

Fee arrangements are discussed transparently at the outset and tailored to the nature and complexity of the matter. Matrix Legal offers a range of fee structures including fixed fees for defined stages of work and hourly rate arrangements. You will always know what you are being charged and why, before any work is undertaken. Contact us to arrange your free assessment.