Its a shame that this wasn't tested in court. Hopefully the other defendants will stand up for themselves (it may be worth asking the EFA if they can provide legal support - http://www.efa.org.au). Defamation laws vary from state to state, though are supposedly "substantially uniform". In Queensland laws were recently amended:
-preventing corporations (other than non-for-profit organisations or small businesses) from suing for defamation, addressing current community concerns that large companies could stifle legitimate public debate by beginning defamation action; -establishing a defence of "truth" to replace the previous defence of "truth and public benefit"; -reducing the time limit for bringing a defamation action from six years to one year (or three years if the court is satisfied an action could not have been brought within one year); -abolishing the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in civil defamation proceedings; -limiting juries to determining whether a person has been defamed, leaving the awarding of damages to judges.
In QLD, DMN's action should have been ruled out by the first clause - though arguably, since the sum awarded was more than their entire revenue for last quarter ($25K), they are a small business.
Also would be interested in the substance of the posts - unfortunately they've been moderated. Any chance of getting at least a description of their contents?
DMN Price at posting:
0.2¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
