An original publisher of defamatory matter who is actuated by malice cannot avail themselves of a defence of qualified privilege in respect of a republication by a third party, even where the republisher itself acted without malice. This applies both at common law and under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), where s 30(4) operates to defeat the defence upon proof that the original publication was actuated by malice. The broader question of whether qualified privilege is ever available to an original publisher in respect of a non-malicious republication was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.