Litigation

Australia’s defamation laws have been significantly reformed to adapt to the digital age, with New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) becoming the first jurisdictions to implement these changes, effective from 1 July 2024. These reforms, introduced in NSW through the Defamation Amendment Act 2023  [‘Defamation Act’] are designed to better balance freedom of speech with the protection of reputation in an increasingly online world. This article explains the key aspects of these legislative changes in NSW, their implications, and how they mark a significant shift from previous defamation laws.

If you think you have been defamed or charged with defamation, consult with our experienced criminal lawyers today.

Australian Defamation Law and the Need for Reform

Defamation law in Australia has historically aimed to protect individuals from false and harmful statements. However, the rise of digital platforms and social media has complicated the application of these laws, leading to challenges in balancing reputation protection with free expression. The High Court’s decisions in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] and Google LLC v Defteros [2022] highlight the difficulties in determining the liability of digital intermediaries, including social media platforms and forum administrators, for third-party content (content posted by others).

The Voller case was particularly impactful, where the High Court held that media companies, as forum administrators, were liable as publishers of defamatory comments posted by third parties on their social media pages. This ruling underscored the need for clear legislative guidance on the responsibilities and liabilities of digital intermediaries in the digital age.

Key Reforms in the New Defamation Legislation

The new legislation introduces several significant reforms, focusing on the liability of digital intermediaries and the introduction of new defences and exemptions. These changes represent a substantial shift from the previous legal framework.

Innocent Dissemination Defence for Digital Intermediaries

A pivotal reform is the introduction of the innocent dissemination defence under section 31A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and section 139BA of the Civil Wrongs Act 2002 (ACT). In NSW,this defence allows digital intermediaries—such as social media platforms, review websites, and forum administrators—to avoid liability for defamatory content posted by third parties, provided they have an ‘accessible complaints mechanism’ (NSW), such as having an email address or a webpage where a complaint can be sent or inputted, respectively. However, the defence requires intermediaries to take ‘access prevention steps’ that remove or block the content within seven days of receiving a complaint.

This new defence is a direct response to the Voller decision and shifts the focus from automatic liability to a more nuanced approach that recognises the intermediary’s role as a facilitator rather than a creator of content. It also extends protections to ordinary individuals, such as parents or community members who administer online forums, offering them a way to avoid liability if they act promptly upon receiving complaints.

Exemptions for Conduit, Caching, and Storage Services and Search Engines

Additionally, the legislation introduces exemptions from defamation liability for certain types of digital intermediaries. This means companies that provide internet services, store data, or operate search engines are now protected from being sued for defamation over content they didn’t create or actively manage. For example, if someone posts defamatory content on social media, and that content is merely stored or passed through these intermediaries, the intermediaries won’t be held legally responsible just because they hosted or transmitted the content.

In contrast, under older laws, these intermediaries could be dragged into defamation litigation even if they had no direct role in creating or controlling the content. This put an unfair burden on them. The new exemptions change that by recognising their passive role, meaning they can’t be sued just for being the “middlemen” in the content’s transmission. This approach aligns Australian law with international standards, especially those in the United Kingdom, where similar protections are already in place.

Mandatory Offer to Make Amends and Access Prevention Steps

The reforms update the offer to make amends scheme, allowing digital publishers to include “access prevention steps”—such as removing or blocking defamatory content—as part of their amends. This change provides a practical solution for swiftly addressing online defamation, reducing the need for prolonged litigation and offering a clear path for resolution.

New Powers for Courts to Order Access Prevention

Courts can now compel non-party digital intermediaries to remove or block access to defamatory content, especially when the original publisher can’t or won’t do so, or when the content spreads beyond its original platform. This power enhances the protection of defamation victims by enabling swift and effective removal of harmful material.

Identification of Anonymous Posters

Addressing the challenge of anonymity in online defamation, the new section 23A of the Defamation Act specifies factors courts must consider when ordering digital intermediaries to disclose the identities of anonymous posters. This includes considering privacy, safety, and public interest, ensuring a balanced approach that protects individual rights while enabling plaintiffs to pursue defamation claims.

Expansion of Electronic Service of Notices

The reforms also modernise the process for serving notices under the Defamation Act, expanding the methods to include email, messaging services, and other electronic communication. This change reflects the realities of modern communication and makes it easier for parties to comply with legal requirements.

Implications

The 2024 reforms represent a significant advancement in Australian defamation law, particularly in how they address the complexities of the digital age. Compared to older laws, these changes provide several key benefits:

Enhanced Protections for Digital Intermediaries

The introduction of the innocent dissemination defence and the statutory exemptions for certain digital services provide much-needed clarity and protection for digital intermediaries. This represents a major shift from previous laws, which often left intermediaries vulnerable to liability for content they did not create or control. The new laws encourage responsible content management without imposing undue burdens on intermediaries.

Better Balance Between Reputation and Free Speech

The legislation strikes a more appropriate balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding free speech. By focusing on serious harm, public interest, and providing practical remedies like access prevention steps, the reforms ensure that defamation law remains effective without stifling public discourse.

Streamlined Legal Processes

The reforms introduce measures that make the legal process more efficient, such as clear defences, the ability to issue take-down orders, and expanded electronic service methods. These changes are particularly important in the fast-paced digital environment, where delays can exacerbate the harm caused by defamatory content.

Alignment with International Standards

By adopting defences and exemptions similar to those in other jurisdictions, particularly the UK, the reforms align Australian defamation law with international standards. This not only provides legal consistency but also supports the growth and innovation of digital platforms in Australia.

Conclusion

The 2024 defamation law reforms in NSW and the ACT mark a significant step forward, addressing the challenges of the digital age and modernising the legal framework to better protect both reputation and free speech. These changes, which include new defences and exemptions for digital intermediaries, empower courts to more effectively manage defamation cases in the online world while providing individuals with clearer, more practical remedies. As the first jurisdictions in Australia to adopt these reforms, NSW and the ACT are leading the way in creating a legal environment that reflects the realities of modern communication.

If you have questions or concerns about defamation laws, if you’re facing a defamation action, or if you think you’re a victim of defamation, don’t hesitate to contact our team of expert lawyers today.

Unfortunately disputes arising from domestic building contracts are a common story. Just ask anyone who has built or renovated a house.

While most disputes can be resolved amicably either before or during mediation on the areas of disagreement, this is not always the case. In both NSW and Queensland there are well-established dispute resolution processes managed initially through the NSW Department of Fair Trading and, in Queensland, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC).

In both states the advice and guidance of Felicio Law Firm should be sought before you enter dispute resolution.

Of course, using a state-run dispute resolution services does not prevent either of the parties from seeking legal advice or taking independent legal action in a contractual dispute… but you should definitely seek expert legal advice if this is your preferred course of action.

Terminating a contract for breach requires a number of important procedural steps to be taken in order for it to take effect. There are potentially serious consequences for a party who wrongly terminates a building contract.

Common disputes in regard to domestic building contracts include disagreements about the contract price, the contract clauses relating to variations (of fixtures, or plans, for e.g.), extensions of time, implied warranties (defective work, non-completion, etc) and more.

Contract dispute resolution in NSW

In any dispute with a contractor, it is best to first raise the issue directly with them to see if the area of contention can be resolved to mutual satisfaction.

If that is not possible, NSW Fair Trading provides a dispute resolution service through its Home Building Service. This service aims to provide early intervention to avoid an escalation of the dispute. Statistics on the effectiveness of the service show that over 70 per cent of disputes over building contracts are resolved at the initial mediation or inspection stage.

This process can be commenced by the homeowner/consumer, or the contractor, by a formal request to Fair Trading. If the contractor initiates the request, the homeowner must agree to enter into dispute resolution but if the consumer lodges a complaint, the trader does not need to agree to resolving the dispute (though is strongly encouraged to do so).

Resolution of disputes relies on the work of experienced, trade-qualified building inspectors located throughout NSW who will provide an opinion on whether work performed under a contract is defective or incomplete.

This process may be conducted in the presence of the homeowner and contractor on site, or through inspection of material submitted by both parties combined with phone interviews. If the issue in contention can be resolved, the inspector will compile a complaint investigation report detailing what actions have been agreed upon and what each party has to do.

Where the inspector is satisfied the contractor bears responsibility for defective or incomplete work, a rectification order is issued directing the trader to rectify or complete the work by a due date. Should work not be fixed by the nominated date, the builder will be breach of the Home Building Act 1989.

If on the balance of probabilities the inspector is not satisfied that fault for the dispute solely resides with the contractor, a homeowner can choose to lodge an application with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to have the complaint heard and determined. Expert legal advice should be sought at this stage.

Statutory warranties under the Home Building Act apply for six years for major defects and two years for all other defects from the date of the completion of home building work. A claim must be lodged with the NCAT within these periods in order for it to deal with the issue.

Resolution of building disputes in Queensland

In Queensland the QBCC provides an Early Dispute Resolution (EDR) Service provided your building contract is not completed or has been terminated. A complaint before a contract has been completed may relate to defective or incomplete building work, or an issue about the contract itself. This service is only available for domestic building contracts worth $3,300 or more.

The aim of the EDR service is to facilitate a speedy resolution of the issue in dispute. Similar to the NSW process, the QBCC will rely on a building inspector to make a visual inspection of a property if work is alleged to be defective or incomplete under the terms of the contract, and make a decision as to what action is required. This may include issuing a Direction to Rectify to the contractor.

The QBCC can help parties reach agreements when contractual disputes arise (progress payments, delays, defective work, for e.g.) but it cannot make orders about a contract, nor force a party to pay or refund monies, or comply with any agreement the parties may reach.

Instead, for enforcement action or in the case of termination of the contract, parties need to take the dispute to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). In most cases, applications to QCAT need to demonstrate that the parties have tried to achieve a resolution through the QCCB EDR process.

QCAT exercises jurisdiction over most legal disputes involving domestic building contracts in Queensland, including commercial building disputes involving work of a value up to $50,000.

Before initiating legal action in QCAT, the parties to the contract are encouraged to seek advice from a legal representative with experience and expertise in Queensland building legislation, such as Felicio Law Firm.

The importance of good legal advice

Building contracts usually involve significant sums of money and for that reason, emotions can run high when there is disagreement between a homeowner and a building contractor.

But these emotions need to be kept in check. An owner’s inclination to terminate a contract and find new builders can have very detrimental consequences if the document is incorrectly terminated under the terms of the contract.

If you have questions or concerns about how to resolve a dispute about a building contract, contact the professionals with extensive experience in NSW and Queensland building contracts, Felicio Law Firm. Call us today on (02) 4365 4249.