good points 401, but defamation requires that a statement be FALSE. Under the common law, one is only entitled to a reputation that you have and not a reputation that you do not have.
Regarding what havoc/inside said (if this was the matter you were referring to with your 'careful - defamation' post), if what was stated was a fact (i.e. can be substantiated by a body such as the ATO), then it is not a matter of 'truth' that would need to be debated in court is it? It becomes a statement of FACT and a defence against any claim of defamation.
In that particular instance, it would be no more an act of defamation than me saying that Gary was found guilty by the WA Magistrates Court of providing confidential information to a land developer when deputy director general of the Department of Industry and Resources. Why? Because that is a statement of FACT (i.e. an objective truth if you will). There is no longer the need to provide a public interest element, though one might well be satisfied even if the requirement still existed under the new legislation (i.e. PDY is a publicly listed company).
If the statements made were not true (i.e. an unsubstantiated rumour), then you are right and it may well constitute an act of defamation for the reasons you have stated.
PDY Price at posting:
0.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
