# Australia defamation online: how the law works

Australia defamation online explained: who can sue, serious harm, concerns notices, defenses, platform liability and time limits, with state gaps stated.

---


Australia defamation online is governed by state and territory Acts, not one national statute. In the New South Wales and Queensland texts we read, a person can sue over an online post only if it identifies them, carries a defamatory meaning, was published to someone else, and has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation. They must also send the publisher a written concerns notice first and wait for the offer period to pass, and the usual time limit is one year.

Most of the practical questions turn on four things: whether the harm is serious enough, whether the publisher has a defense, who counts as a publisher when the words sit on a platform, and how much time is left. This guide is about those legal tests. It is not a route map across eSafety, privacy law and platform tools; it stays inside defamation and explains how a court would look at an online statement.

This is information, not legal advice. We read the New South Wales [Defamation Act 2005](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2005-077), the New South Wales [Limitation Act 1969](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1969-031) and the Queensland [Defamation Act 2005](https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2005-055) on the legislation sites, plus the High Court summaries of Voller and Defteros. The Acts of Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory could not be read for this guide, so nothing below should be assumed to apply there. Your own Australian lawyer decides what applies to you.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>You must show serious harm to reputation, and a judge, not a jury, decides that early. A rude post that reached few people may fail at this step.</li><li>A written concerns notice is a precondition to suing in New South Wales and Queensland on the texts we read. The default amends period is 28 days.</li><li>The common defenses are substantial truth, honest opinion, public interest, qualified privilege and, for platforms, a complaints-mechanism defense with a 7 day action window.</li><li>The New South Wales limit is one year from publication, with narrow extensions. Other states have their own Acts, so confirm yours.</li><li>Truth and opinion are the reasons many angry posts are lawful. The law protects accurate criticism, which is also why we do not help hide it.</li></ul></div>

<figure class="keyfacts">
<div class="keyfacts-grid">
<div><b>28 days</b><span>default period after a concerns notice before a claim can be started</span></div>
<div><b>7 days</b><span>window for a digital intermediary to act after a written complaint</span></div>
<div><b>Fewer than 10</b><span>employees a company must have to sue, and it must not be part of a larger group</span></div>
</div>
<p class="fig-src">New South Wales Defamation Act 2005 sections 14, 31A and 9, as read on legislation.nsw.gov.au. The Queensland text we read carries the same concerns notice, corporation and 7 day rules; the other jurisdictions were not read.</p>
</figure>

## Who can sue for defamation in Australia

Individuals can sue, most corporations cannot, and the dead cannot. Section 10 of the New South Wales Act says a person, including a personal representative of a deceased person, cannot assert, continue or enforce a cause of action for defamation for a deceased person. That matters when a post is about a late relative.

Section 9 is the rule that surprises business owners. A corporation generally has no cause of action unless it is an excluded corporation. On the text we read, that covers a corporation whose objects do not include financial gain for its members and that is not a public body, and a corporation with fewer than 10 employees that is not an associated entity of another corporation. The Queensland Act we read states the same rule. So a sole director running a small, standalone company can sue in the company's name. A mid-sized company, or a subsidiary of a group, usually cannot, and its executives would need to sue personally if the words are about them.

An excluded corporation has an extra hurdle. Under section 10A(2) it must show serious financial loss, not only serious harm to reputation. The directors of a larger company face a different problem: a statement about "the company" is not automatically a statement about them, so the post has to point to the person.

Section 8 gives a person a single cause of action for one publication, even where the matter carries several defamatory meanings. In practice you plead the meanings, called imputations, but you get one claim for that publication, not one per meaning.

## What a claim must show before it gets anywhere

A claim has four basic parts. The statement identifies you, whether by name or by detail that readers who know you would recognize. It carries a meaning that lowers your standing with ordinary people or makes them avoid you. It was communicated to at least one person other than you. And, in the versions we read, it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your reputation.

The Act does not define defamation. Section 6 states that the Act relates to the tort of defamation at general law, so the detail of meaning, identification and publication comes from case law. A post that never names you but describes your business, suburb and role can still identify you to the people who matter.

## The serious harm test and why it ends many claims

Serious harm is an element you must prove, not a defense. Truth is a defense, and it ends many arguments: the law asks whether a statement was substantially true, not whether it was fair, which is why we never help hide accurate reporting. Section 10A of the New South Wales Act makes it part of the cause of action. The judge, not the jury, decides it under section 10A(3), and under section 10A(4) and (5) the judge can decide it at any stage, on application or on the judge's own motion. Where a party applies, it is decided as soon as practicable before the trial starts unless special circumstances justify waiting. Queensland's section 10A, as read, gives the same job to the judicial officer.

## The concerns notice and the offer to make amends

You cannot start proceedings without having sent a concerns notice and waited. Section 12B in New South Wales says an aggrieved person cannot commence defamation proceedings unless a concerns notice has been given, the imputations relied on were particularized in it, and the applicable period for an offer to make amends has elapsed. Section 12B(3) lets a court grant leave despite non-compliance only if the limitation period would otherwise be contravened or it is just and reasonable to do so. The Queensland text we read has the same precondition in its section 12B, with the same 28 day default period in its section 14.

Section 12A describes the notice. It must be in writing and say where the matter can be accessed, identify the imputations you complain of, and say what serious harm it has caused or is likely to cause. A copy of the matter should be supplied where practicable. The publisher can ask for further particulars. You then have 14 days to answer, or the notice is treated as not given. A careless notice therefore restarts the clock, which is why one precise notice beats two quick ones.

The publisher can respond with an offer to make amends. Section 15 requires it to be in writing, labeled as an offer, open for at least 28 days, and to include a correction or clarification, reasonable steps to tell others who received the matter, and an offer to pay your reasonable expenses. An apology and compensation can be added. Under section 14(2) the default period is 28 days from the notice. Under section 18, a publisher who made a reasonable offer as soon as reasonably practicable, and was ready to perform it, has a defense if the offer is not accepted. Section 20 says an apology is not an admission of fault or liability, which makes it easier for a publisher to say sorry.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Publisher response</th><th>What it means for you</th><th>Typical risk</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Removes the post, no offer</strong></td><td>Harm may stop. The legal wait may still run.</td><td>A copy may remain elsewhere</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Reasonable offer to make amends</strong></td><td>Correction, apology and expenses may resolve the matter</td><td>Refusing a reasonable offer weakens your claim</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Requests further particulars</strong></td><td>You have 14 days to answer</td><td>Notice treated as not given if you miss it</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Rejects, relies on a defense</strong></td><td>Take advice before the limitation date, not after</td><td>Costs, publicity, a second story</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>No reply</strong></td><td>The period runs and a claim may follow</td><td>Silence can mean the author or operator cannot be reached</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

Section 40 adds a cost pressure. The court may consider how the parties conducted themselves, and unless the interests of justice require otherwise it must order indemnity costs where a party unreasonably refused a reasonable settlement offer, and offers to make amends count as settlement offers. A reasonable early offer is a strong card for the publisher. Refusing it because you want a harsher outcome is a recognized way to lose money.

## The defenses that decide most online disputes

A defendant does not have to show the words are harmless. They have to prove a defense, and several are common online. The table below sets out the ones we read in the New South Wales Act, with the Queensland text confirming sections 29A and 31A.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Defense</th><th>What the publisher must show</th><th>What defeats it</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Substantial truth (s 25)</strong></td><td>The defamatory imputations are substantially true</td><td>Failure to prove the imputation as pleaded</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Contextual truth (s 26)</strong></td><td>Some imputations are substantially true and the rest do no further harm</td><td>Contextual meanings that add harm</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Honest opinion (s 31)</strong></td><td>An opinion, not a statement of fact, on a matter of public interest, based on proper material</td><td>Proof the opinion was not honestly held</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Public interest (s 29A)</strong></td><td>The matter concerns an issue of public interest and the publisher reasonably believed publication was in the public interest</td><td>A weak or careless belief</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Qualified privilege (s 30)</strong></td><td>The recipient had an interest in the information and the conduct was reasonable</td><td>Malice</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Innocent dissemination (s 32)</strong></td><td>A subordinate distributor that neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known the matter was defamatory, and whose ignorance was not due to negligence</td><td>Notice of the problem</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Digital intermediary (s 31A)</strong></td><td>A platform with an accessible complaints mechanism that took access prevention steps in time</td><td>Proof of malice</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

The public interest defense (section 29A) is a standing feature of the Act we read. It protects a publisher who reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. It covers more than the press, and a notice about a story with a genuine public interest angle can fail and become a second story. Before sending a notice about an article that reports a court case, a regulator's decision or a complaint, ask your lawyer how this defense would apply.

## Who counts as the publisher when the words sit on a platform

A person who helps convey a defamatory statement to another person can be a publisher, and that reach is wider than the author. Two High Court decisions set the outer lines on publication. The statutory platform defense, covered below, sits on top of them.

In [Fairfax Media Publications v Voller](https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2021/hca-27-2021-09-08.pdf), decided on 8 September 2021, the High Court held that media companies were publishers of third-party comments on their public Facebook pages. On the court's summary, creating the pages and posting news content facilitated and encouraged the comments, so the companies participated in conveying them. The majority rejected the argument that a publisher must know of the content and intend to convey it. The decision concerned publication only, not whether the comments were defamatory, and not defences or damages. For a business, the lesson is practical: comments on a page you run can be your problem, and the stronger a page is built to attract discussion, the harder it is to say you had no part.

In [Google LLC v Defteros](https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2022/hca-27-2022-08-17.pdf), decided on 17 August 2022, the High Court held by majority that Google was not a publisher of an article by providing a search result with a hyperlink to it. On the summary, the hyperlink merely facilitated access and was not participation in communicating the article's contents. Because there was no publication, the Court did not decide the defenses. The summary also does not decide whether a search engine publishes anything else it shows, such as other search features, so the decision is narrower than a headline suggests. It is Google-specific. It does not tell you what other search engines or AI assistants do.

The platform reforms sit on top. Section 31A of the New South Wales Act, and the Queensland text we read (the in-force version dated 26 December 2025, with sections 31A and 39A), give a digital intermediary a defense where it has an accessible complaints mechanism when the matter is published and, if a written complaint is given, takes reasonable access prevention steps before the complaint or within 7 days after it. Only proof of malice in establishing or providing the service defeats it. Moderating or removing content does not by itself cost a platform its status as an intermediary.

Section 39A is the court order tool. After judgment against the defendant, or after an injunction or other order restraining publication, the court may order a non-party digital intermediary to take access prevention or other steps, and the intermediary must generally be given the chance to be heard first. It is a late, court-controlled step and not a starting point. A complaint to a platform is not a substitute for a court order, and a platform is not obliged to remove content on request just because the defense exists. A complaint that identifies the exact address, the false statement and the facts that disprove it is more likely to be acted on than a general one.

## The time limits and the single publication rule

The clock is short and it runs from publication. Section 14B of the New South Wales Limitation Act 1969 makes an action for defamation not maintainable if brought after one year from publication. Giving a concerns notice within the 56 days before that period ends extends it, so it expires 56 days after the notice. Section 56A(2) lets a court extend the period to up to three years from publication where it is just and reasonable to allow the action to proceed. The extension is a decision for the court, not a right, so plan as if the first date is final.

New South Wales also has a single publication rule in section 14C. Where a first publisher, or an associate, later publishes substantially the same matter, the later publication is treated as accruing on the date of the first. The rule does not apply where the later publication is materially different in manner, and prominence and extent are relevant factors. Republishing the same post on a new page does not usually restart the clock, but a more prominent version in a new channel may. We did not read an equivalent provision for the other jurisdictions, so do not assume it. The Queensland Act points to the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 for its limitation period, and that text could not be read for this guide.

An example, with assumptions. Suppose a company with fewer than 10 employees finds a false post on day 330 after publication. Under the New South Wales rule, 35 days remain of the 365 day period. A concerns notice given that day extends the period so that it expires on day 386, which is 56 days after the notice. The 28 day amends period ends on day 358, leaving 28 days to start the claim. That margin is thin, and it shows why waiting until the last month is a mistake.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Stage</th><th>Usual duration</th><th>Clock read</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Capture the post and note the publication date</strong></td><td>Same day</td><td>Starts the one year count</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Platform or publisher complaint</strong></td><td>Days to weeks</td><td>7 days for a digital intermediary defense</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Advice and concerns notice</strong></td><td>A week or two to prepare</td><td>No fixed clock to send</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Amends period</strong></td><td>28 days by default</td><td>14 days to answer a particulars request</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Court claim and early serious harm decision</strong></td><td>Months</td><td>Limitation of one year, extension possible</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

## Remedies: what a win actually delivers

Money is rarely the main goal for someone with a damaged search result, but it shapes the risk. Section 34 requires a rational relationship between the harm sustained and the damages awarded. Section 35(1) sets a cap on damages for non-economic loss, stated in the Act as $250,000 and subject to annual adjustment, and section 35(2) says the maximum is for the most serious case only. The Act also allows aggravated damages beyond that cap. The note on the page we read gave an older declared figure that is no longer updated, so we do not state a current amount. Check the latest gazette notice.

For the person who wants the result gone, the practical route is usually a mix: a precise complaint, a notice if the facts support one, and a request to the search engine to remove the page once the underlying content is down or a court has ruled.

## What we could and could not confirm, state by state

This table lists what we read, not how the law is generally described elsewhere. A blank in our reading is not a statement that the law is missing.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Jurisdiction</th><th>What we read</th><th>Could not confirm</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>New South Wales</strong></td><td>Defamation Act sections 6, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 12A, 12B, 14, 15, 18, 20, 25, 26, 29A, 30, 31, 31A, 32, 34, 35, 39A, 40; Limitation Act 14B, 14C, 56A</td><td>The last part of each page, and any later damages cap declaration</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Queensland</strong></td><td>Defamation Act, in-force version dated 26 December 2025: sections 9, 10A, 12A, 12B, 14, 29A, 31A, 35, 39A</td><td>Limitation period and any single publication rule (the Act points to the Limitation of Actions Act 1974)</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Victoria and Tasmania</strong></td><td>Nothing usable in this review</td><td>Everything</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Western Australia, South Australia, ACT, Northern Territory</strong></td><td>Nothing usable</td><td>Everything</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

## A realistic order of operations

The sequence below is the order that protects your options. It assumes the statement is false and about you, and that you have a lawyer available.

<figure class="fig">
<figcaption><b>From discovery to a decision</b></figcaption>
<ol class="fig-steps">
<li><b>Capture before you contact</b>Save the page, the address, the date, the audience and every comment, with the time you saw it. A post can disappear or change the day you complain.</li>
<li><b>Sort fact from opinion</b>Write down each statement you say is false and the proof that it is. If you cannot prove it false, a notice will probably fail.</li>
<li><b>Test serious harm</b>Note who saw it, who acted on it and what it cost you. Thin evidence means a weak claim, whatever the words say.</li>
<li><b>Complain precisely</b>Send the platform or publisher the exact address, the false statement and the facts that disprove it. For a platform, the 7 day defense window starts with a written complaint.</li>
<li><b>Send one precise notice</b>With advice, send a concerns notice that names the imputations and the harm. Diary the 28 days and the 14 days for particulars.</li>
<li><b>Decide before the limit, not at it</b>Choose between settling on a reasonable offer, suing, or stopping. Do not wait for the last 56 days.</li>
</ol>
</figure>

## Your next step: one page, one date, one question

Start by writing down the publication date, the address of the page and the one sentence you say is false. If you cannot fill all three, you are not ready for a notice.

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>Capture the page and note the date before anything else, because the clock in the Act runs from publication. A private audit can sort what is a legal question from what is a platform or search question, and what can be asked of each. Your own Australian lawyer decides on any notice.</p>
<p><a href="/audit">Request a private audit</a></p></div>

Reputation Partners works on the removal and search side of these files: reaching the right publisher or platform, writing a specific request, and strengthening accurate pages. The legal steps above, such as a concerns notice, stay with your lawyer. If a statement is false and a publisher will not act, our <a href="/remove-negative-content">removal service</a> page explains how that part runs.

## Questions people ask

### Can I sue someone in Australia for a bad online review?

Possibly, if the review states a false fact about you, identifies you, and has caused or is likely to cause serious harm. An honest opinion on a matter of public interest, or a substantially true statement, is a defense. A harsh but fair review usually fails. You would also need to send a concerns notice and wait first.

### Is it defamation to repost or share something in Australia?

It can be. Voller shows that taking part in conveying defamatory material to others can make someone a publisher, and the High Court summary rejected a requirement that the person knew of the content. Sharing a false post widens the audience and the exposure. Whether a particular share is actionable depends on the facts and the defenses.

### Does Australia have a truth defense?

Yes. In New South Wales, section 25 makes it a defense that the defamatory imputations are substantially true, and section 26 covers cases where some imputations are true and the rest cause no further harm. The publisher must prove it. A publisher who cannot prove truth may still rely on other defenses, such as honest opinion or public interest.

### Can a company sue for defamation in Australia?

Only in limited cases. In New South Wales and Queensland, section 9 generally removes a company's cause of action unless it is an excluded corporation, such as a standalone company with fewer than 10 employees or a not-for-profit that is not a public body. An excluded corporation must also show serious financial loss under section 10A(2).

### Do I have to send a letter before suing?

In the New South Wales and Queensland texts we read, yes. A written concerns notice must be given, the imputations particularized, and the offer period allowed to pass before proceedings start, unless the court grants leave in narrow cases. A notice that lacks required details can be treated as not given after a particulars request goes unanswered.

### Can I sue a platform for what a user posted?

Sometimes, but platforms have a specific defense. Under section 31A, a digital intermediary with an accessible complaints mechanism that takes access prevention steps within 7 days of a written complaint is protected unless malice is proved. The target is usually the author, and a court order against a platform comes only after judgment or an injunction under section 39A.

### How long do I have to act?

In New South Wales, one year from publication, with an extension if a concerns notice is given in the last 56 days and a court power to extend to up to three years. Other jurisdictions have their own periods, which we could not confirm in this guide. Treat the first anniversary as final and take advice early.