› where the plaintiffs sued in relation to an article published on “WeChat” - whether either defendant can be proven to be a publisher of the article
› whether the article was published by another in the course of acting under an agency agreement - whether the first defendant was a passive publisher of the article.
Defamation
› PUBLICATION
› GENERALLY
› INTERNET PUBLICATIONS
› SOCIAL MEDIA
› where the plaintiffs sued in relation to an article published on “WeChat” - whether any or all of the plaintiffs are identified in the article.
Defamation
› STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION
› IMPUTATIONS
› where the article is predominantly written in a language other than English
› where there is issue as to the precise meaning of the words used - where plaintiffs allege that the publications gives rise to defamatory imputations
› whether the alleged imputations are conveyed.
Defamation
› DEFENCES
› HONEST OPINION
› where in respect of the publication defendants seeks to establish a defence of honest opinion pursuant to s 31(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)
› whether words of the publication were opinions rather than statements of fact
› whether the opinion expressed was that of an employee or agent of the first defendant - whether the opinions related to matters of public interest
› whether the opinions were based on proper material
Case Details
Citation[2021] QDC 18
CourtQDC
JurisdictionQueensland
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
