cumberlandsashes81
Bench
- Messages
- 3,625
well I'm ooold and finished my law a while ago, but the test for whether your reputation has been damaged is based on whether what was said would lower your reputation in a reasonable person's eyes. so that's why whether you have actually suffered as a result doesn't affect proving your case.
That's right - you don't need to have any loss to be "defamed" under law(though, obviously, most people wouldn't bother suing unless they were going to get something out of it - it's an incredibly expensive process and no one outside of a handful of QCs actually know much about running a common law defamation case - you also run the risk of making things worse for yourself by having new facts come out during the trial).
In NSW there is a two-stage process: a jury (i.e. the reasonable person) first determines whether the published comment (which can be oral or written) had a "defamatory imputation", then a judge determines the merits of any defence for the comments and finally what an appropiate remedy would be (which could be nothing other than an 8-point font apology on page 120 of the weekend paper).
but the thing is, a big corporation like the sharks can't sue for defamation. cause you can't defame a large group (like a footy club or a whole country). so they might be able to sue for injurious falsehood and to do that they need to prove economic loss.
Apparently, Denis Fitzgerald went to Clayton Utz (i.e. the 4th largest firm in Oz who have some partners who have some interest in this area) for advice on an injurious falsehood action during the run-up to the Leagues Club election - it's a pretty rare tort - the onus is on you to prove that comments were false (which you don't need to do in defamation), you also need to prove the publisher's intent to damage the organisation, and then demonstrate actual loss. Hard and expensive.