You may often hear the terms ‘libel’ or ‘slander’ used in the media. These are both actionable torts that have caused damage to a person’s reputation. However, you won’t hear these terms used inside the legal industry in Australia. This is because you can’t technically sue someone for libel or slander in Australia, as these legal actions no longer exist. Instead, they both fall under the term ‘defamation’. In this article, we’ll discuss how libel and slander operate under modern Australian Defamation Law.
Libel and slander are effectively the two ‘branches’ of defamation. Libel refers to defamation that occurs in print, and slander refers to defamation that occurs in speech. Although this distinction still exists in the United States, it no longer exists in Australia and hasn’t for some time. The Defamation Act 2005 (Cth) abolished slander and libel. The broader claim for defamation covers both, but the requirements to be successful in each claim differ slightly.
Libel and slander
The significance of these terms in Australia are largely historical. The term libel derives from latin, meaning ‘small book’. The torts of libel and slander developed in the English legal system, and are still part of the broader tort of defamation in the United Kingdom.
The equivalent of libel, written defamation involves defamatory statements made in writing, or in ‘permanent form’. This can include communications such as emails and group messages or publications such as books, online posts or news articles.
For a defamation claim to be successful, the plaintiff needs to prove:
Publication
That a third party saw or heard the publication
That the publication caused reputational damage
Spoken Defamation
Formerly known as slander, spoken defamation whilst suable, can be harder to prove than written defamation. In this instance, it is likely that a plaintiff will have to get witnesses to testify firstly, as to what was said, and secondly how what was said influenced their opinion of the plaintiff. Spoken defamation may also be harder to prove if there is no recording of what was said.
In Australia, the onus is on the defendant to prove that they did not defame the plaintiff. A defendant has multiple defences they can rely upon, including justification (truth) and privilege (both qualified and absolute).
In the United States, defamation laws are legislated by the states. In Australia, defamation laws have been nationalised, with each Australian state adopting the Defamation Act 2005 (Cth). This means that laws relating to libel and slander will vary in the US from state to state, whereas in Australia the national framework means that defamation laws are substantially the same throughout Australia. Although libel and slander are commonly used terms in US law and culture, they do not exist in Australia. Both written and spoken defamation are actionable torts and have the same defences. If you wish to make a claim for libel or slander, it will be a claim for defamation and you should consult with an experienced defamation lawyer.
Not sure where to start? Contact a LawPath consultant on 1800 529 728 to learn more about customising legal documents and obtaining a fixed-fee quote from Australia’s largest legal marketplace.
Sure, defamation law is a fascinating and complex field, particularly in Australia where the legal landscape has evolved significantly. Libel and slander, once distinct concepts, have now been subsumed under the broader term 'defamation' in Australia, thanks to the Defamation Act 2005 (Cth). This shift streamlined the legal process and eliminated the need to differentiate between libel (defamation in writing) and slander (defamation in speech).
Libel, stemming from the Latin term for 'small book,' referred specifically to written defamation. In modern terms, this encompasses defamatory statements made in any permanent form, such as emails, publications (like books or news articles), or online posts. Proving a libel claim involves demonstrating that a third party saw or heard the defamatory publication, and that it caused reputational damage.
Slander, the spoken form of defamation, is now encompassed within the broader defamation concept in Australia. Unlike libel, proving slander can be more challenging, often requiring witnesses to testify about the spoken words and how those words impacted the plaintiff's reputation. The absence of a recording can further complicate such cases.
What's interesting is the shift in the burden of proof in Australian defamation cases. Unlike some jurisdictions where the burden might be on the plaintiff, in Australia, the defendant holds the onus to prove they didn't defame the plaintiff. Defendants can invoke various defenses, such as justification (truth) or privilege (both qualified and absolute), to counter defamation claims.
The harmonization of defamation laws across Australia, through the Defamation Act 2005 (Cth), distinguishes it from the US, where defamation laws are state-specific. In the US, libel and slander remain distinct concepts, and the legal nuances can vary significantly from state to state.
So, while terms like libel and slander are commonplace in US legal contexts, they've been absorbed into the broader concept of defamation in Australia. This shift emphasizes the need to consult experienced defamation lawyers when seeking recourse for any defamatory statements, whether spoken or written.
The distinction between libel and slander was completely abolished under the uniform legislation, meaning that plaintiffs can now sue for defamation regarding publications of defamatory matter of both kinds under the Defamation Act.
This is because you can't technically sue someone for libel or slander in Australia, as these legal actions no longer exist. Instead, they both fall under the term 'defamation'. In this article, we'll discuss how libel and slander operate under modern Australian Defamation Law.
Yes, you can sue someone in Australia if you believe you have a legal claim against them. It's important to seek legal advice to assess the merits of your case before proceeding.
In some states, libel can sometimes be charged as a crime and be punishable by a fine and jail time. However, in California, people who have been defamed are limited to their right to recover damages in a civil lawsuit.
In Australia, defamation is almost always a civil matter, not a criminal matter. In law, a “civil” matter is a dispute between two parties. The parties can be individuals or businesses. Civil matters don't involve arrests, charges or anything else you see dramatised on TV.
Unprivileged: You cannot sue for defamation based on statements considered "privileged." For example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a false and injurious statement, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is privileged.
However, specific evidence can help prove your claim, including: Witness statements. Testimony from eyewitnesses who heard the false statement can be excellent evidence in a slander claim. They can confirm the details of the defamatory statement and its publication, such as what was said, when it was said and to whom.
court filing fee of $197. if claim is not defended: legal fee of $600 (2 hours) to prepare court documents for default judgment. if claim is defended: legal fee of $1200 (4 hours) to read the defence and advise whether the firm is likely to be successful. legal fee for attending initial court appearance $900 (3 hours)
Damages in Defamation Cases. The answer is, yes, it is worth it. When a true case of defamation exists, there are damages that are caused as a result. Those damages are compensable through a civil lawsuit, in California and beyond.
As set out above, the LAA provides that any claim for damages for personal injury must be brought within 3 years from the time the cause of action arose. In cases where the cause of action requires proof of damage (for example, negligence) then the limitation period commences at the time the injury was first suffered.
To win a libel suit, a public figure must prove the publisher of the false statements acted with actual malice. Actual malice means that the publisher knew that the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. This is much harder to prove than negligence.
Yes. There are two possibilities, one is false statement to police (and possibly contempt of court if it went to court). The other is a claim of defamation if they made a false accusation to the newspaper or online in social media. I suggest that anyone who has been falsely accused go get legal advice.
In order to make a case for libel, you have to be able to allege specific things that your ex said that are factually untrue. Her opinions of you, no matter how unfair or ugly, are not actionable.
Maximum penalty—3 years imprisonment. (2) In a proceeding for an offence defined in this section, the accused person has a lawful excuse for the publication of defamatory matter about the relevant person if, and only if, subsection (3) applies.
To be defamatory, the material has to be published(communicated by any means, including written, orally, pictorially) to at least one person other than the person making the claim. The intention of the publisher does not matter and liability for defamation can arise even from unintended errors.
This means that police do not get involved in disputes relating to defamation. A person that is sued for defamation may have to pay damages to the defamed person and may also have court costs and legal fees awarded against them.
To win a libel lawsuit, a private person must prove the publisher of the false statements acted negligently. Negligence means that the publisher didn't do their homework. Even if the publisher didn't know that the information was false when released, they can still be on the hook for libel if they should have known.
Introduction: My name is Nicola Considine CPA, I am a determined, witty, powerful, brainy, open, smiling, proud person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.
