McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2025] QDC 182

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2025]
QDC 182
PARTIES: ROBERT MCVICKER
(plaintiff)
v
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(defendant)
FILE NO: 1542/22
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Trial
ORIGINATING District Court, Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 21 November 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING 16 and 17 October 2025
DATES:
JUDGES: Jarro DCJ
ORDER: Judgment for the defendant. I will hear from the parties
as to costs.
CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – where
the plaintiff claims the defendant published an article on its
website which was defamatory of him – where the plaintiff
claims the article was a one-sided account about the failure of
a business – where the plaintiff was the director of the business – whether the article was published – whether the article
contains defamatory imputations about the plaintiff – whether damages should be awarded to the plaintiff – whether
injunctive relief should be awarded to the plaintiff
DEFAMATION – OTHER DEFENCES – MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES – where the plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief – whether the defence of
offer to make amends pursuant to s 18 of the Defamation Act
2005, as it then was, applies
LEGISLATION: Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 18, s 29A, s 33
CASES: Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No. 7) [2019] FCA 496
Taylor v Nationwide News Ltd (No. 2) [2022] FCA 149
Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 201
Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 570
COUNSEL: J P Hastie for the plaintiff
L E Barnett SC and J S Forbes for the defendant
SOLICITORS: Mills Oakley for the plaintiff
ABC Legal for the defendant

The plaintiff, Mr McVicker, seeks damages and injunctive relief following an online article (the article) of 5 January 2019 by the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC). The article is reproduced in Schedule 1 to these reasons.
The principal issues to be resolved in this case involve the following:

(a) Whether the article was published.
(b) Does the article contain defamatory imputations about Mr McVicker?
(c) Does the defence of offer to make amends pursuant to s 18 of the Defamation Act 2005 apply?
(d) Does the defence of triviality pursuant to s 33 of the Defamation Act 2005 apply?
(e) What damages should be awarded to Mr McVicker (including whether injunctive relief should be granted).

The proceedings arise in circumstances where Mr McVicker claims the ABC, without any attempt to check the facts or obtain his comment, presented a one-sided account about the failure of a business known as Bestjet. Bestjet was an online travel agency which failed about six weeks after Mr McVicker acquired it in November 2018. Mr McVicker placed Bestjet into voluntary administration in December 2018. The
article, in reporting a statement made by Bestjet’s former director, Ms Rachel James,
suggested that Bestjet collapsed, and left thousands of customers out of pocket,
because of Mr McVicker’s poor and inefficient management. In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 182
Decision Date: 21 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr McVicker, against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The dispute centred on the publication of an article by the ABC that Mr McVicker alleged defamed him. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the published article defamed Mr McVicker and, if so, whether the ABC was liable for the defamatory content. The court also considered the ABC's potential defences, including the public interest defence provided by section 29A of the Defamation Act 2005. The court examined the article's content and its impact on Mr McVicker's reputation, along with the circumstances surrounding its publication.

The court determined that the article did not defame Mr McVicker to the extent that would justify a finding of liability against the ABC. The judge noted that while the article contained certain assertions, they did not lower Mr McVicker in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court also considered that any potential defences, such as the public interest defence, might have been available to the ABC if the defamation claim had succeeded. However, as the court found no liability, it did not deem it appropriate to grant injunctive relief or to speculate on the availability of defences in the hypothetical scenario of liability. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the ABC, dismissing Mr McVicker's claim.

The court's final order was for judgment in favour of the defendant, the ABC. The judge invited submissions from both parties regarding the costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the defendant. I will hear from the parties

as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

It is not appropriate nor would I be inclined to grant injunctive relief in the event I am wrong regarding liability because as has been highlighted to me on behalf of the ABC, to do so would effectively circumvent the summary dismissal of Mr McVicker’s claim in relation to the updated article and the ABC has submitted it may have had defences open to it in relation to the updated article, for example, the public interest defence pursuant to s 29A of the Defamation Act 2005. Conclusion Accordingly, there is judgment for the ABC. I will hear from the parties as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2025] QDC 182
PARTIES:	ROBERT MCVICKER
(plaintiff)
v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(defendant)
FILE NO:	1542/22
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING	District Court, Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	21 November 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING	16 and 17 October 2025
DATES:
JUDGES:	Jarro DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the defendant. I will hear from the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – where
the plaintiff claims the defendant published an article on its
website which was defamatory of him – where the plaintiff
claims the article was a one-sided account about the failure of
a business – where the plaintiff was the director of the business – whether the article was published – whether the article
contains defamatory imputations about the plaintiff – whether damages should be awarded to the plaintiff – whether
injunctive relief should be awarded to the plaintiff
DEFAMATION – OTHER DEFENCES – MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES – where the plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief – whether the defence of
offer to make amends pursuant to s 18 of the Defamation Act 2005, as it then was, applies
LEGISLATION:	Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 18, s 29A, s 33
CASES:	Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No. 7) [2019] FCA 496 Taylor v Nationwide News Ltd (No. 2) [2022] FCA 149 Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 201
Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 570
COUNSEL:	J P Hastie for the plaintiff L E Barnett SC and J S Forbes for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Mills Oakley for the plaintiff
ABC Legal for the defendant