Defamation Cases

Explore Our Collection of Defamation Case Summaries

On this page, we link to case summaries featuring some of the most notorious defamation disputes in Australian history. These summaries provide valuable insights into landmark rulings, legal precedents, and strategies employed by brand owners and their opponents.


BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd v Hayes [2021] QDC 111 

Here, we shed light on a gripping case that involves a cosmetic medical clinic, BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd (BeautyFULL), and its former employee, Hayes. Join us as we explore the tangled web of personal animosity, mental health struggles, and the surprising twist that allows BeautyFULL to sue for defamation.

Reid v Dukic [2016] ACTSC 344

The plaintiff, Reid, was the CEO of Capital Football Pty Ltd for 12 years before standing down in April 2016. The defendant, Dukic, was a soccer coach that published nine posts on Facebook about Reid throughout 2014. The plaintiff claimed that the posts were defamatory to her reputation and sought damages and injunctions.  

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496

The case Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496 involved a defamation claim brought by Australian actor Geoffrey Rush against Nationwide News Pty Ltd, the publisher of The Daily Telegraph newspaper.  


Fairfax Media Publications v Voller [2021] HCA 27

In Fairfax Media Publications v Voller [2021] HCA 27, we take a look at the intriguing events that transpired between Dylan Voller and Australian media companies involving a case for defamation and social media posts.


Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2022] WASCA 44

In this legal battle, defamatory statements caused reputational damage. Appellant Rayney sought damages due to false murder accusations by Detective Lee. The Court assessed economic loss and causation, rejected increased damages but awarded interest on financial loss.


Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited [2010] HCA 25 

Former CEO of Homewise Realty takes legal action against Westpac over dishonored cheques. This case examines defamation and breach of contract charges. The bank’s defense invokes common law qualified privilege, based on valid reasons to share information, but not if motivated by malice.