Defamation News: The first time a Qualified Privilege Defence holds up in Australia!

The recent defamation case of Srecko and David Lorbek v Peter King [2022] VSC 218 (5 May 2022) appears to be the first time a qualified privilege defence has been successfully invoked in Australia with respect to Google reviews.

The Lorbeks (the plaintiffs) claim for defamation was based on four of the 13 posts made by the defendant; three Google reviews posted on the 4 April 2017, 19 October 2017 and 20 October 2017 and one Law Answers post, dated 17 April 2016. The publications made by Peter King (the defendant) were in relation to the purchase of an unroadworthy car from the plaintiff’s business Lorbek Luxury Cars (LLC).

Each of the four publications identified the plaintiffs and conveyed an imputation that the first plaintiff deserved no respect as a business owner.

The first Google review published conveyed the imputations that the first plaintiff:

  1. is and was a dishonest car dealer; and
  2. is untrustworthy as a car dealer;

Each of the four publications conveyed the imputations that the second plaintiff:

  1. is and was a liar;
  2. is and was a dishonest car salesman; and
  3. is an untrustworthy car salesman.

The defendant relied on the statutory defence of qualified privilege pursuant to section 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (the Act), which required him to prove that the recipient had an interest or apparent interest in having information on the subject, published in the course of giving the recipient information on that subject, and the conduct of the publishing that matter was reasonable in the circumstances.

 

In determining whether the recipients of the publications had an interest in having information in respect of LLC in the public, McDonald J referred to the case of Defteros v Google where the Court of Appeal stated that:

“[T]he courts have placed a wider construction on the words ‘an interest’, in s.30 of the Act, than was previously accorded to the concept of ‘interest’ for the purposes of the common law qualified privilege.”

 

Adopting this wider interpretation, the publications of a dissatisfied customer experience were found to be a direct interest to customers and potential customers of LLC and individuals who read the Google Reviews, not merely out of idle curiosity.

 

In determining whether the conduct of the defendant in publishing the information is reasonable, a Court may take into account the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in s.30(3) of the Act. McDonald J emphasised that this list should not be treated as a checklist and no single factor is determinative. It is also not necessary to prove that the matter published concerned an issue of public interest, to establish the defence of qualified privilege.

 

The considerations set out in s.30(3) of the Act include:

 

  • The extent to which the matter published is of public interest;
  • The extent to which the matters published relates to the performance of public functions or activities of the plaintiffs;
  • The seriousness of any defamatory imputation carried by the matter published;
  • The extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions, allegations and proven facts;
  • Whether it was in the public interest in the circumstances for the matter to be published expeditiously;
  • The nature of the business environment in which the defendant operates;
  • The sources of the information in the matter published and the integrity of those sources;
  • Whether the matter published contained the substance of the person’s side of the story, and, if not, whether a reasonable attempt was made by the defendant to obtain and publish a response from the person.

 

The Court found that the defendant exercised reasonable care by making proper enquiries prior to publishing the Google reviews and the Law Answers post. It was reasonable for the defendant to rely on the information provided to him about the vehicle being unroadworthy and to conclude that the plaintiffs lied to him about several aspects of the vehicle’s condition, through information obtained by his enquiries.

 

Further, it was found that the defendant’s motivations for publishing the Google Reviews did were not actuated by malice. The defendant’s motivation was to draw attention to his experience with LLC and to warn other potential customers against dealing with LLC. As the reviews were published in the defendant’s own name and given the passage of time between being told that the car was unroadworthy to the publication of the Google Reviews, McDonald J was not satisfied that there was malice on the part of the defendant towards the plaintiffs.

 

Implications

 

Whilst the defendant in this case made out a qualified privilege defence for some serious defamatory imputations published, it remains important to carefully investigate the subject of Google Reviews and other publications one makes online. Before posting, it is imperative to think about the seriousness of any defamatory imputations that may attach to one’s comments and be sure to clearly distinguish between suspicions and proven fact. Consider your purpose and motivation for posting reviews: Is it for genuine public interest, or are you being driven by anger and malice?

 

Elit Lawyers by McGirr & Snell has over 60 years’ specialised defamation experience acting on behalf of individual and companies including high profile executives, parliamentarians, sporting and public figures. If you need legal assistance with any aspect of your social media presence or have any other defamation concerns, please contact Danielle Snell and/or Robert McGirr.

 

 

Share
Email
Print

Get in touch

With us personally, it is just one more way we’re different.

Danielle Snell

CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER

.

Robert McGirr

CO-FOUNDER AND PARTNER

.

"

"We were forced to issue legal proceedings against the insurer for a number of reasons including disagreement about the amount of money that was required to be paid out under the policy to reinstate our home. I want to express our deepest heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for all Elit did for our family throughout this matter."

Insurance Policy Holder

Home owner

Thank you to Danielle and Mark and the Elit team for all their hard work in acting for myself and my family against a large international insurer following a fire sustained at our home. We were forced to issue legal proceedings against the insurer for a number of reasons including disagreement about the amount of money that was required to be paid out under the policy to reinstate our home. I want to express our deepest heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for all Elit did for our family throughout this matter.
The work of Danielle and Mark was professional, consistent and to the highest standard throughout this process. I was so impressed by each of the team. It wasn’t just their exceptional professional work that left the impression, but more importantly, their interactions as good, decent, kind individuals. Thank you Elit for captaining this litigation ship throughout the tiresome journey! We really appreciate everything you have done for us. I hope and pray that each one of you has a share in some of the comfort you have provided my family in your own lives.

"

"Being subject to malicious false statements was very stressful, as I have always conducted myself with professionalism and integrity.  As a result of the action taken by Robert McGirr & Elit Lawyers, the false statements were retracted, I received a formal apology and was paid my legal costs. "

Defamation

Plaintiff

I was engaged to appear on behalf of a resident at an aged care home in a proceeding before the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT). A false and defamatory email was sent by a senior executive of the home about my conduct at the hearing to a number of third parties.

The false statements contained in that email were serious and damaging to my reputation, and included amongst other things, an imputation of criminality, which if proven to be true, could have resulted in a term of imprisonment. Being subject to malicious false statements was very stressful, as I have always conducted myself with professionalism and integrity. 

As a result of the action taken by Robert McGirr and Elit Lawyers, the false statements were retracted, I received a formal apology and was paid my legal costs. I could not have achieved this outcome without the assistance of Robert. I felt informed and comforted throughout the process and am very grateful for the early result that was achieved. 

"

"I was devastated when I learnt of a very serious defamatory publication made against me. I was so grateful to Danielle and the legal team who were able to obtain a pseudonym order in my favour so that I was able to advance defamation proceedings with anonymity."

Defamation

Plaintiff

I was devastated when I learnt of a very serious defamatory publication made against me.

I was concerned that bringing a Court proceeding would lead to widespread media reporting which would in turn repeat the allegations made against me and cause even more harm to my reputation because let’s face it – mud sticks.

I was so grateful to Danielle and the legal team who were able to obtain a pseudonym order in my favour so that I was able to advance defamation proceedings against the publishers with anonymity and be comforted that the defamatory content linked to my name would not be further spread.

I felt vindicated at the end of the matter and will always look back on the experience as a difficult one but knowing that issuing the court proceedings was what I had to do in order to achieve redress and restore my reputation.

"

"When we were targeted by a vexatious and unfounded online attack, I turned to Robert, Danielle, and Elit for advice. As I am a lawyer myself, Elit’s ability to zone in so quickly on what was best for us really impressed me. "

Defamation

Lawyer and Business Owner

As a lawyer and business owner, I take our professional reputation seriously.

When we were targeted by a vexatious and unfounded online attack, I turned to Robert, Danielle, and Elit for advice. Their calm, clear, and strategic guidance was exactly what we needed. They quickly understood the key issues and provided practical options that prioritised our values and professional standing.

I was impressed with their ability to get across the key issues and provide real life practical advice during this critical time which really centred around us and what was best for our business.

As I am a lawyer myself, Elit’s ability to zone in so quickly on what was best for us really impressed me.

"

"My business was sued for defamation. The Eit team were able to pinpoint the weaknesses in the other side’s case and were able to resolve the proceeding on very favourable terms for us."

CEO

Medical Industry

My business was sued for defamation and my insurance company appointed Aggie, Danielle, Robert and the Elit team to act in my defence of the proceeding.

I was astounded by the fact that the Eit team were able to pinpoint the weaknesses in the other side’s case and after bringing an interlocutory application on my behalf, they were able to resolve the proceeding on very favourable terms for us.

I felt informed and comforted throughout the process and am very grateful for the early result that was achieved.

"

"I felt comforted and informed throughout the legal process and was happy with the early resolution of the case which achieved my ultimate objectives."

Director

ASX Listed Company

Danielle and team acted on behalf of myself and my fellow directors of an ASX listed company in the Supreme Court of Western Australia involving repeated attacks and defamatory content being posted about us on a forum website. The third party website operator was also joined to the proceeding.

Given the personal attacks made against me and my fellow directors, it was a difficult situation over an extended period and I felt comforted and informed throughout the legal process and was happy with the early resolution of the case which achieved my ultimate objectives to have the content removed and undertakings that no future defamatory content would be published by the person involved.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Search