Article Summary
Defamatory meaning is the reputational accusation an ordinary reasonable person would take from a publication read as a whole. The test allows reasonable implications, but not strained ones. It asks what the publication conveys, rather than what the publisher intended or how hurt the person named feels. An accusation can damage professional standing as well as personal reputation.
In Queensland, establishing a defamatory meaning is only part of a claim. The plaintiff must also establish publication, identification and that the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation under s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
A concerns notice must identify the imputations relied upon before proceedings are commenced.
In this article, our defamation lawyers explain those requirements, ordinary implications and true innuendo, using Radio 2UE v Chesterton and Favell v Queensland Newspapers to show how courts assess meaning and challenges to it.
Defamatory Meaning and the Ordinary Reasonable Person Test
Defamatory meaning is the reputational sting an ordinary reasonable recipient would take from the whole publication. The question is what the words, images and context convey, including reasonable implications, and whether that meaning would make ordinary reasonable people think less of the person identified. The plaintiff’s hurt feelings and the publisher’s intended meaning do not decide the issue. A Queensland claim must also establish the separate serious harm element in s 10A(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
Why defamatory meaning matters
A dispute over defamatory meaning can look simple until the parties try to state the accusation precisely. “The manager was involved in the missing funds” might suggest that the manager stole them, knew of the theft, was merely questioned, or was responsible for weak controls. Those are materially different imputations. The choice affects what a defendant must answer, whether a truth defence can be proved, and the likely gravity of any reputational harm. The broader requirements of publication and identification are considered in Stonegate Legal’s guide to the elements of defamation in Queensland.
The Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) does not supply a comprehensive definition of defamatory meaning; the common law supplies the objective test. The High Court in Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16 treated the central question as whether the matter would be likely to lead ordinary reasonable people to think less of the plaintiff. The question can concern professional standing as readily as personal character. The supposed reader is an ordinary member of the community, not an expert in the plaintiff’s trade by default.
In this article, our defamation lawyers explain those requirements, ordinary implications and true innuendo, using Radio 2UE v Chesterton and Favell v Queensland Newspapers to show how courts assess meaning and challenges to it.
How the ordinary reasonable person tests defamatory meaning
A fair reading of the whole publication
For defamatory meaning, the ordinary reasonable person reads with ordinary intelligence and general experience. That person is neither unusually suspicious nor unusually gullible; they can read between the lines, but cannot manufacture an accusation the material will not bear. A court does not decide meaning by asking what the most hostile reader could imagine. Equally, a publisher cannot isolate a cautious sentence if the headline, photograph and surrounding text deliver a more damaging impression. Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52 illustrates why an arguable implication is not removed by dissecting an article sentence by sentence.
Form matters. A reader can return to a lengthy article; a listener may hear a radio remark only once. A social post may pair an image with a caption, replies and a link. The first task is to preserve and identify the actual matter complained of, in the form and setting in which it reached recipients. Questions about communication to third parties are covered in Stonegate Legal’s publication in defamation law guide.
Inference is allowed; speculation is not
Defamatory meaning need not be stated outright. “Why did the treasurer delete the invoices before the audit?” may reasonably suggest deliberate concealment, even though it takes the form of a question. Whether it conveys dishonesty depends on the full post and its audience, not the question mark. A denial can sometimes repeat and reinforce the allegation it purports to reject. The solicitor’s task is to state the actual inference, then test whether an ordinary recipient could reasonably draw it from the publication.
| Question | Practical enquiry |
| What is the matter? | Identify the complete article, broadcast, post, image or other publication and its relevant context. |
| What does it convey? | State each distinct accusation in clear language, including a reasonable implication. |
| Is that meaning defamatory? | Ask whether ordinary reasonable people would likely think less of the person because of it. |
| Is the meaning available? | Ask whether an ordinary recipient could reasonably draw it; an ingenious or strained interpretation is insufficient. |
| What remains to prove? | Identification, publication, serious harm and the absence of an effective defence remain separate issues. |
Two cases that show the limits of defamatory meaning
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton: professional reputation
In Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16, radio presenter John Laws made disparaging remarks about sports journalist Ray Chesterton. The High Court considered the proper standard for deciding whether the imputations were defamatory, including those directed at Chesterton’s work. The test of defamatory meaning was not confined to allegations of moral misconduct. A publication may lower a person in the estimation of others by damaging their professional reputation; the ordinary community standard still governs, unless a pleaded true innuendo turns on special knowledge. The case is a useful warning against assuming that an attack on competence is merely an insult with no legal sting.
Favell v Queensland Newspapers: capacity is not the final finding
In Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52, a newspaper article about a fire at a Brisbane property also discussed a contested redevelopment proposal. The plaintiffs alleged imputations connecting them with the fire. The High Court held that the article was capable of bearing the pleaded meanings and allowed the appeal from the decision disposing of that part of the case. It did not finally decide that ordinary readers actually took those meanings, that they were true or false, or that liability was established. The procedural distinction matters: a meaning that can reasonably be conveyed survives a capacity challenge, while whether it was conveyed remains for determination on the evidence at trial.
A similar caution appears in Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25. Search results combining images, text and autocomplete predictions were not properly dismissed at the threshold as incapable of conveying the pleaded criminal associations. That decision concerned capacity and summary dismissal, not a final finding that the allegations were in fact conveyed.
Ordinary meaning, true innuendo and the intended audience
Defamatory meaning in its natural and ordinary sense includes an implication drawn from the material itself and ordinary general knowledge. Lawyers sometimes call that implied meaning a “false innuendo”; it does not require proof that recipients knew some special external fact. True innuendo is different. It arises when otherwise innocuous words take on a defamatory meaning for recipients who know an extrinsic fact. The fact, its knowledge by relevant recipients and the resulting meaning must be identified and proved. Stonegate Legal has a fuller treatment of innuendo in defamation.
Consider a hypothetical community association post: “The person who signed off the weekend accounts has finally resigned.” If its audience already knows that a particular treasurer signed them, that knowledge may identify the plaintiff. If only some recipients also know that the weekend accounts are under investigation for misappropriation, an allegation of involvement in misappropriation may require a true innuendo case. Identifying someone through outside knowledge and giving neutral words a damaging sense through outside knowledge are different steps.
Another hypothetical is a local builder’s review stating: “Ask them what happened to the deposit before you pay one.” Readers may take an ordinary implication that customers’ deposits were mishandled; it would be a stretch, without more, to plead that the builder committed a particular criminal offence. The precise pleaded sting decides what a defendant may seek to justify. Under s 25 of the Defamation Act, the defence concerns the substantial truth of defamatory imputations carried by the matter, not merely the literal accuracy of isolated words.
| Type of meaning | What supplies the sting | Evidence focus |
| Express allegation | The accusation is stated directly. | The whole publication and ordinary understanding of its words. |
| Ordinary implication | An ordinary recipient infers the accusation from words, images or context. | The complete matter and the reasonableness of the inference. |
| True innuendo | Special external facts known to some recipients change the meaning. | The external facts, recipients’ knowledge and the meaning thereby conveyed. |
Defamatory meaning in a concerns notice and pleading
Defamatory meaning must be stated early. A concerns notice under s 12A(1)(a)(iii) of the Defamation Act must inform the publisher of the defamatory imputations said to be carried by the matter. It must also identify where the matter can be accessed and explain the serious harm said to have been caused or likely to be caused under s 12A(1)(a)(ii) and (iv). Under s 12B(1)(b), proceedings generally cannot be commenced on an imputation that was not particularised in the concerns notice; s 12B(2) allows reliance on some of those imputations or substantially the same imputations. Stonegate Legal’s concerns notice guide addresses the notice and offers to make amends in detail.
A pleaded defamatory meaning should say what is alleged about the plaintiff, with a degree of seriousness the publication can sustain. “The defendant defamed the plaintiff” is not an imputation. “The plaintiff stole client money” is different from “the plaintiff was suspected of misusing client money”. Pleading the first when the publication supports only the second changes the case a defendant must meet and invites an application about capacity or particulars. For the general pleading framework, see Stonegate Legal’s Queensland pleadings and particulars guide.
The court can determine as a question of law whether the publication is capable of conveying a pleaded meaning. If it is capable, the tribunal of fact determines whether it actually conveys that meaning and whether it is defamatory in the circumstances. Favell cautions against resolving a genuinely arguable meaning by overly refined analysis on a preliminary application. That does not protect a meaning that requires the reader to add facts absent from the publication and unpleaded as a true innuendo.
Defamatory meaning is distinct from serious harm and defences
The sting may be grave but reach very few people; another allegation may spread widely yet be comparatively mild. Under s 10A(1), the plaintiff must establish that publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. The judicial officer decides that issue under s 10A(3) and may determine it before trial; under s 10A(7), insufficient pleaded particulars can defeat the element without further evidence. Defamatory meaning informs gravity, but it cannot alone establish the scale and circumstances of harm. Stonegate Legal’s serious harm threshold guide examines that proof separately.
Defamatory meaning also sets the field for defences. Section 25 requires substantial truth of the defamatory imputations carried by the matter. Section 26(1) provides a contextual truth defence where substantially true contextual imputations mean the complained-of imputations do not further harm reputation. A response that proves an investigation occurred may not justify an allegation of guilt. Before advice is given on prospects, the proposed imputation should be compared with the whole publication, the available evidence and each potential defence.
The practical first step is to preserve the entire publication, then write down the strongest meaning an ordinary recipient could fairly take and a narrower alternative. Test each against the actual words and setting. That exercise often reveals whether the real dispute concerns meaning, the ability to prove a defence, or serious harm. It also prevents a concerns notice from committing the claimant to a sensational meaning the material cannot carry.
Defamatory Meaning – Frequently asked questions
What is defamatory meaning?
Defamatory meaning is the reputational accusation a publication conveys about an identifiable person. The question is whether that meaning would be likely to cause ordinary reasonable people to think less of the person. It may be expressed directly or conveyed by a reasonable implication.
Who is the “ordinary reasonable person” in a defamation case?
The ordinary reasonable person is the hypothetical recipient used to assess the publication objectively. They read or hear the matter fairly, can draw reasonable inferences, and are not assumed to search for scandal or apply a lawyer’s close analysis. Their interpretation is assessed in the context of the whole publication.
Can a statement be defamatory without expressly accusing someone of wrongdoing?
Yes. A headline, question, photograph or combination of words may imply wrongdoing without stating it outright. The implication must be one an ordinary reasonable recipient could draw from the complete publication. A suspicion invented by a particularly hostile reader is insufficient.
Does the publisher’s intended meaning decide the case?
No. Defamatory meaning is assessed objectively by what the publication would convey to an ordinary reasonable recipient. A publisher’s assertion that they “didn’t mean it that way” does not resolve the question, although the actual words and context may support a less damaging interpretation.
Can criticism of someone’s professional ability be defamatory?
Yes. Defamation can damage professional or business reputation as well as personal character. In Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton, the High Court considered the test for imputations concerning a journalist’s professional reputation. Mere disagreement or an unflattering opinion does not automatically establish a claim; the meaning and its effect on reputation must be assessed.
What is the difference between an ordinary implication and true innuendo?
An ordinary implication arises from the publication and general knowledge without special external facts. A true innuendo depends on additional facts known to some recipients that give otherwise innocuous material a defamatory meaning. A claimant relying on true innuendo must identify those facts and establish the relevant recipients’ knowledge of them.
What is a defamatory imputation?
A defamatory imputation is the specific accusation or attribute said to be conveyed about the person. “The accountant stole client money” and “the accountant was suspected of mishandling client money” are different imputations. Stating the precise meaning matters because it defines the allegation the publisher must answer and the meaning a truth defence must address.
Must the defamatory imputations appear in a Queensland concerns notice?
Yes. A concerns notice must inform the publisher of the defamatory imputations said to arise from the matter. Under section 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), the imputations relied on in proceedings must generally have been particularised in that notice, although the plaintiff may rely on some of them or on substantially the same imputations.
Is proving defamatory meaning enough to win a claim?
No. A Queensland plaintiff must also establish the other elements of the claim, including publication to another person, identification and serious harm. Section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) requires proof that publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. A defendant may also establish an available defence.
Can a court reject a pleaded defamatory meaning before trial?
Yes. The court may decide whether the publication is capable of conveying the pleaded meaning. If it cannot reasonably bear that meaning, the allegation may be disposed of before trial. If the meaning is reasonably open, capacity alone does not decide whether recipients actually took it. Favell v Queensland Newspapers illustrates that distinction.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
