Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 DECEMBER 2020

Uniform defamation law – new law, new era

Bartier Perry Solicitors
Explore more from Bartier Perry Solicitors

Understanding your position at an early stage of defamation matters will be more important than ever under the new regime.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gavin Stuart
Gavin Stuart
Max Mikha (Formerly With Bartier Perry)
Max Mikha (Formerly With Bartier Perry)
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

In 2004, each State and Territory in Australia agreed to support the enactment of uniform model provisions in relation to the law of defamation known as the Model Defamation Provisions (MDP).

For the first time in over 15 years, significant changes have been proposed to the MDP's. Following submissions and feedback from stakeholders (including media and digital companies) and public consultation, in July 2020 the Council of Attorneys-General agreed to support the proposed changes to the MDP.

While the Defamation Amendment Bill 2020 (NSW Bill) was approved and assented to on 11 August 2020, the amendments are yet to come into force.  

This bulletin explores some of the key changes contained in the NSW Bill and how these proposed changes may affect defamation cases in the future.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

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.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

How To Draft A Defence And Reply

Queensland civil procedure requires defendants to respond to each factual allegation with precision—admissions, denials, or non-admissions must be properly explained, while inadequate responses risk being treated as admissions. Replies serve a distinct and limited purpose, addressing only new matters raised in the defence that could affect the claim's maintainability or introduce unexpected factual questions.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Who Signs The Termination Letter Matters – The Importance Of The Decision-maker

The Full Federal Court's decision in Totino v Metro Trains Melbourne clarifies how employers can successfully defend general protections claims when dismissing employees who have made workplace complaints or workers compensation claims. The case establishes critical principles about who must give evidence, the distinction between advisers and decision-makers, and why proper documentation of the decision-making process is essential for employers facing the reverse burden of proof.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

Dividend Payments - Key Issues For Australian Company Directors

Dividends are a common way for companies to distribute value to shareholders, but whether to declare or pay a dividend is not simply a commercial decision. Directors must ensure that any dividend complies with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), the company’s constitution and relevant governance requirements, while considering their duties to the company and its creditors.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

Federal Budget 2026–27: Key Tax Changes And What Clients Need To Know

On Tuesday, 12 May 2026, the Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, handed down the 2026–27 Federal Budget. The Federal Budget introduces the most significant tax reforms aimed at reshaping how income and wealth are taxed in Australia. The Government is seeking to rebalance the system by reducing tax on income from work and increasing tax on income from assets, and then using that difference to fund personal tax relief and influence housing behaviour.
AustraliaTax
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

Suspicious Minds: What You Need To Know About AML/CTF Suspicious Matters Reports

Reporting entities under Australia's AML/CTF Act face strict obligations when suspicious matters arise, with tight deadlines of just 24 hours for terrorism financing and 3 business days for other suspicions. Understanding what constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion, recognizing red flags, and avoiding tipping off offences are critical compliance requirements that demand robust internal processes and staff training.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

Shareholder Oppression - Protecting Your Rights As A Shareholder

When you invest your time, money and energy into a company, you expect to be treated fairly and to have your rights as a shareholder respected. But what happens when those rights are ignored, or worse, actively undermined? Shareholder oppression is a serious issue that can have significant financial implications. If you suspect that your rights are being compromised, it’s important to act promptly to protect your interests.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Fair Work Act Goes Global - When Overseas Employees Fall Under The Act

Australian courts are increasingly examining whether the Fair Work Act applies to employees working entirely overseas. A recent Fair Work Commission decision reveals that jurisdiction may hinge not on where an employee performs their duties, but on the technical question of where the employment contract was legally formed—with significant implications for employers managing remote and offshore workforces.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors