Question 1
The Rebel Wilson case may have been altered by the proposed reforms to defamation law in Australia. Under the proposed reforms, Bauer Media would be able to use the defence of public interest if they could prove the publication of each of the articles on Rebel Wilson were on a “matter of public interest” and that they “reasonably believed that the publication was in the public interest”. Nationwide Newswould also be able to use the defence of public interest if they could prove the publication of each of the stories on Geoffrey Rush were on a “matter of public interest” and that they “reasonably believed that the publication was in the public interest”.
The provision requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate that the publication caused actual or likely serious harm to their reputation might have altered the Google Inc v Trkulja case. It would be difficult to prove that thegoogle searches inferring that the plaintiff was a serious criminal had caused actual or serious harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.
Some of the cases may have been altered by the proposed requirement for parties wanting to sue for defamation to issue a concern notice to publishers. Some may have been altered by the proposedrule that establishes online publication to be taken from the date that the defamatory material was first published,instead of the date it was accessed or downloaded. This would depend on when the defamatory material was first published in each case.
Question 2
Different defamation laws operating in different states of Australiawould result in consistencies in the way that defamation cases were dealt with by the courts. Defamatory statements are likely to be confined to a single state and plaintiffs may choose to take a case to a court in a state of their choice that most favours their case.