News: Conservative Strategist Lynton Crosby and an Australian twitter libel action

The Conservative Party’s Australian election strategist, Lynton Crosby, has brought defamation proceedings against a Labour politician in the Federal Court in Australia over an alleged defamatory tweet.  The action is being brought by Mr Crosby and his business partner, Mark Textor over a tweet from Mike Kelly, a Federal Labor Politician who is now the Minister for Defence Materiel.  He tweets as @MikeKellyMP. 

Case Law, Australia: Mahon v Mach 1 Financial Services. Fijian Property Developer’s Case Struck Out – Justin Castelan

It is well known that a plaintiff has very little chance of getting an injunction to restrain the publication of defamatory matter.  Courts will usually say that damages are an adequate remedy. It is also well known that the Defamation Act provides that, for the most part, a company cannot sue for defamation in Australia.  So what does a company do? Injurious falsehood is the go. A company can sue if there is a false malicious publication and it causes actual financial loss to that company. Very difficult, especially proving malice and especially financial loss, but unlike defamation, the chance for an injunction is greatly increased.

Case Law, Australia: Sands v South Australia, No tort for breach of privacy – Justin Castelan

In a trial that ran for 55 days late last year and concluding in February this year, the plaintiff, Derick John Sands, has lost his claim for defamation, as well as other claims including a breach of confidence and a breach of his right to privacy. Judgment was given on 5 April 2013 ([2013] SASC 44).

Australia: The Great Media Reform Mess – Richard Ackland

The Australian government’s mishandling of legislation related to press standards has left media reform in a mess … Richard Ackland reflects on what went wrong and why the threatened loss of the media exemption under the Privacy Act was a joke.

Case Law Australia, Monis v The Queen: Offensive communications and freedom of expression – Eloise Le Santo

In the case of Monis v The Queen ([2013] HCA 14) the High Court of Australia considered familiar issues concerning offensive communications and freedom of expression.  The defendant, Man Haron Monis, is alleged to have written letters to the families of soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan. While expressing sympathy to the families, the letters were critical of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan and of the soldiers and the part they had played in the war, referring to the soldiers in ‘a denigrating and derogatory fashion’.

Case Law: Rana v Google Australia – Google continues to resist claims for publication – Gervase de Wilde

Google has for the most part successfully fought off attempts to make it liable for third party publications, or search results. But, given the company’s enormous power and influence over the online world, it is unsurprising that claims against it and its subsidiaries continue to be brought. In Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd ([2013] FCA 60), an Australian court considered whether such a claim could be made, or served on the American parent company.

Australia: Question Time – Interview with Peter Bartlett

Minter Ellison partner Peter Bartlett has been at the top of the media law game for decades, instructing an enviable list of media companies. He agreed to share his thoughts on many matters – including defamation, privacy, phone-hacking, media regulation, protection of sources, super-injunctions, suppression orders and the vexations of anti-discrimination legislation

Case Law, Australia: Gluyas v Best, Emphatic win for Aspergers’ Advocate – Justin Castelan

Now 47, Philip Gluyas was 31 when he was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. On the one hand, Asperger’s can mean that a person has difficulties empathizing with people and dealing with social interactions that many people take for granted, like non-verbal communication.

Case Law, Australia, Belbin v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation, Water Corporation sent down the river for Aus$295,000 – Justin Castelan

In the northwest of Victoria sits the orange-picking town of Mildura on the Murray River. To get there from Melbourne usually involves a 6-hour drive or a small flight on a plane with a flip-top lid. But it was there in Mildura where Justice Stephen Kaye and a jury of six heard a defamation trial that ran for 22 days and traversed the many great and wondrous issues that defamation trials can throw up.  Judgment was given on 9 November 2012 ([2012] VSC 535).

Case Law, Australia, Papaconstuntinos v Holmes a Court, Qualified privilege, Holmes a Court wins in High Court – Justin Castelan

Given that this year AFL Football and cricket have graced the Australian courts with fantastic defamation cases about talk shows, lurid affairs and sordid match-fixing claims, it seems only natural that Rugby League would eventually be selected as well.  And so it was. The High Court gave leave to appeal (still not sure why) and heard the appeal relating to the financially struggling South Sydney Rabbitohs and the feuding enemies who jousted for positions on the Club’s Board in March 2006 ([2012] HCA 53). In the one corner was the plaintiff, Tony Papaconstuntinos, or Mr Papa for short, who was a director of the Club and also employed by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“CFMEU”).