HL v Australian Capital Territory

In the case of HL v Australian Capital Territory, the plaintiff, HL, brought a defamation claim against the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) regarding statements made by the defendant in relation to allegations of sexual abuse. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had defamed him by publishing a statement that the department had substantiated an allegation of sexual abuse against him, followed by a statement that a judge had found the allegation not to be substantiated. The plaintiff contended that the earlier statement was not neutralised by the later statement and that the inclusion of a further statement about the record being retained in accordance with child protection guidelines was also defamatory.

The court had to determine whether the earlier defamatory statement was neutralised by the subsequent statement and whether the further statement about the record retention was also defamatory. Additionally, the court needed to examine the defence of qualified privilege and whether the publication was actuated by malice, requiring proof of a dominant purpose or motive. The court also considered the relevance of earlier unfair treatment and defamation found to have been published maliciously, as well as the possibility that some officers of the defendant were misled by others.

The court found that the earlier defamatory statement was not neutralised by the later statement, and the further statement about record retention was also defamatory. Regarding the defence of qualified privilege, the court concluded that it was not applicable as the publication was actuated by malice. The court ruled that the plaintiff did not need to prove a dominant purpose or motive for the improper act, and earlier unfair treatment and defamation were relevant to the case. The court determined that some officers of the defendant may have been misled by others, but this did not absolve the defendant of liability.

The court ordered that it be declared that the plaintiff did not sexually abuse his daughter as stated in the database and records of the ACT Department of Education and Community Services. The court also ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff and to publish a correction and apology on its website.