Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The giving of a concerns notice is compulsory, and a pre-requisite to commencing defamation proceedings. Section 12B(1) of the Defamation Act states: (1) An aggrieved person cannot commence defamation proceedings unless— (a) the person has given the proposed defendant a concerns notice in respect of the matter concerned; and
Defamation Act (with its variations) is a stock short title used for legislation in Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom relating to defamation. It supersedes the short title Libel Act .
Crosby v Kelly is an important Federal Court of Australia case concerning the jurisdiction of the court to hear defamation claims. The judgment of the Full Court confirmed that the Court has original jurisdiction to hear defamation claims that could be heard by a Territory court, specifically the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
The defendants also claimed qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 1974 , which the court held to be appropriate and adapted. In 2015 the High Court in McCloy v NSW revised the test of whether the law in question impinges on the implied freedom of political communication through a three-step test: [6]
Greatly restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see e.g. Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than in defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss. [53]
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick.
If you’re stuck on today’s Wordle answer, we’re here to help—but beware of spoilers for Wordle 1304 ahead. Let's start with a few hints.
On its facts, the case concerned the constitutional validity of Part IIID of the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991, [2] which regulated political advertising during election campaigns, and required broadcasters to broadcast political advertisements free of charge at other times. The High Court found the laws to be invalid.