Under s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), a claimant must prove that the specific publication sued upon caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation, which requires isolating the harm caused by that publication from harm caused by prior publications. The rule in Dingle's case does not prevent a court from considering prior publications on the question of causation of serious harm, and does not apply to judicial or quasi-judicial findings such as coronial findings. Mere reinforcement of a settled adverse view already held by the audience does not necessarily constitute 'serious harm'. Where a publication is one episode in a series, and earlier episodes have already severely damaged the plaintiff's reputation, the later episode may not satisfy the serious harm threshold even if it conveys a grave imputation to a large audience.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 28 later cases that cite this judgment.
13 of the 28 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.