Doe v Dowling

The case of Doe v Dowling involved a defamation dispute where the defendant admitted to publishing defamatory material about the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought relief under the Defamation Act 2005 (Cth), alleging that the defendant's conduct in publishing the material was unreasonable, thereby failing the defence of qualified privilege. The defendant, in turn, pleaded the defence of qualified privilege, arguing that the circumstances justified the publication of the defamatory material. However, the court found that the defendant's failure to attempt to verify the information before publishing it was unreasonable, leading to the failure of the qualified privilege defence.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's conduct in publishing the defamatory material was reasonable under s 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Cth). The court examined the circumstances surrounding the publication, including the defendant's failure to verify the information before posting it. Given that the defendant was likely to repost the defamatory material, the court considered it necessary to grant a non-publication order and a permanent injunction to prevent further dissemination of the defamatory content. The court also ordered the defendant to pay costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the unreasonable conduct of the defendant in publishing the defamatory material.

The court concluded that the defendant's failure to verify the information before publication was unreasonable in the circumstances. The defence of qualified privilege was therefore unsuccessful. The court found that the defendant's conduct warranted the imposition of a non-publication order and a permanent injunction, in addition to the costs order. The court's decision underscored the importance of verifying information before publication, particularly in contexts where the defence of qualified privilege is invoked.