Defamation is a national practice. Matrix Legal is based in Melbourne and acts for clients in every Australian state and territory — in the Federal Court, the Supreme and District Courts, and in pre-litigation resolution. This page explains where we appear, and why the jurisdiction your matter is brought in can genuinely change its outcome.
Our home jurisdiction. We act in the Supreme Court of Victoria, the County Court and the Federal Court's Victoria Registry, and advise on Victoria's adoption of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 reforms. Regional clients — Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and beyond — are conducted with no practical difference from metropolitan matters.
Supreme Court of Victoria · County Court · Federal Court (VIC)
NSW is Australia's most active defamation jurisdiction and the source of most leading authority on the serious harm threshold. We regularly act in matters governed by NSW law and in the Federal Court's NSW Registry, where many of the country's highest-profile defamation trials are heard.
Supreme Court of NSW · District Court · Federal Court (NSW)
Queensland adopted the Stage 1 reforms in 2021, and its Stage 2 provisions dealing with digital intermediaries are before the Parliament. We act for Queensland clients in the Supreme and District Courts and the Federal Court's Queensland Registry.
Supreme Court of QLD · District Court · Federal Court (QLD)
WA is different — it has not adopted the 2021 reforms. There is no serious harm element and no single publication rule in WA, which can make it a materially more favourable forum for some plaintiffs, as Reynolds v Higgins illustrated. Forum analysis is a core part of our advice in matters with a WA connection.
Supreme Court of WA · District Court · Federal Court (WA)
The ACT abolished juries in defamation and adopted the national reforms. Matters for public servants, academics and political figures frequently arise here; we act in the ACT Supreme Court and the Federal Court's ACT Registry.
Supreme Court of the ACT · Federal Court (ACT)
South Australia and Tasmania have adopted the uniform reforms; the Northern Territory, like WA, has not — so NT matters are run under the pre-2021 law. We accept instructions in all three jurisdictions, with appearances conducted in person or by video-link as the court directs.
Supreme Courts of SA · TAS · NT
Three features of Australian defamation law make it a genuinely national practice. First, the Model Defamation Provisions mean the substantive law is largely uniform in the eastern states — a concerns notice drafted in Melbourne complies in Sydney and Brisbane. Second, the Federal Court of Australia exercises jurisdiction over defamation claims nationally, with registries in every capital city; most of the landmark cases of the last five years were Federal Court matters. Third, courts now conduct case management and many interlocutory hearings by video-link as a matter of routine.
The exception is choice of law and forum. Because WA and the NT retained the pre-2021 law, a claim that would fail the serious harm threshold in NSW or Victoria may succeed there. The point was decisive in MacInnes v Wilson [2026] FCA 957, where the choice between NSW and WA law shaped how the serious harm question was argued. Where a publication was read in several states, identifying the place of the most significant harm — and therefore the governing law — is one of the first strategic questions we assess in a free case assessment.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.