Barrow v Bolt

In the case of Barrow v Bolt, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for defamation. The plaintiff had made a complaint to a regulatory body about the defendants, and in response, the defendants were invited to respond to the complaint. The first defendant sent an email to the second defendant and forwarded it to the regulatory body, which contained defamatory imputations. The defendants admitted that the imputations were defamatory but argued that they were protected by qualified privilege, which was not defeated by malice. The plaintiff argued that the ‘harm’ for the purposes of triviality included ‘hurt feelings’ and that the defendants had not made a reasonable offer of amends within the required time. The court had to decide whether the defendants' privilege was qualified and whether it was defeated by malice. The court also had to determine whether the ‘harm’ for the purposes of triviality included ‘hurt feelings’ and whether the defendants' letter constituted a ‘concerns notice’ under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic).

The court found that the defendants' email was defamatory and that the imputations were of a serious nature. The court held that the defendants' qualified privilege was not defeated by malice because they had acted in good faith and without any improper motive. The court held that the ‘harm’ for the purposes of triviality did not include ‘hurt feelings’ and that the plaintiff had not suffered any significant harm as a result of the imputations. The court also held that the defendants' letter did not constitute a ‘concerns notice’ under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) because it did not contain an offer of amends or an apology. The court found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding. The court also made an order under section 33 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) that the defendants publish a statement on their website correcting the imputations made in the email. The statement had to be published within two weeks of the order and be in a prominent position on the website for a period of six months.