Login
iscover
The lawyer who won Rebel Wilson’s record $4.56 million defamation case warns that in an environment where everyone has the “power to publish,” professionals can — often unknowingly — find themselves in hot water.
‘Power to publish’ catching out accountants
10 October 2017
•
6 minute read
There are three elements to a defamation case that accountants should be aware of if they are publishing content to a third party, particularly on social media.
You’re out of free articles for this month
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
First, a statement is potentially defamatory if it is critical or negative, and exposes someone to hatred, contempt or ridicule, explained Richard Leder, partner at Corrs Chambers Westgarth.
For a defamation claim to proceed, a plaintiff or complainant must also be identified either by name, description or deduction.
Finally, and critically, the claim must be published to a third party. This, Mr Leder told Accountants Daily, is commonly misunderstood.
“In a defamation context, this just means that you’ve conveyed the information to a third party,” Mr Leder said.
“So, it includes a broadcast by a television station and something in a newspaper, but it would also include a tweet, a Facebook post, an email — all of those things are publications,” he said.
“It’s absolutely clear that the defamation laws that apply to conventional mass media publication also apply to any other publication by person A to person B about person C,” he said.
A crucial defence to a defamation claim is that the published content is true, which would have to be proven. The facts conveyed are not the only issue to consider here — the meaning that flows from these facts must also be true.
Mr Leder gave the example of a person running out of a bank with a balaclava on their head, while an alarm is sounding. This description, if published, gives the impression that the person has robbed a bank. While the facts of that description are correct, the case may actually be that a fire alarm had sounded, and the person running from the bank was wearing a balaclava to shield against the weather.
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!
