where the applicant claims an article on the respondent’s website was defamatory of him
Quick Take
1An article that reports a third party's emotional and self-interested attribution of blame for a corporate collapse does not necessarily convey to the ordinary reasonable reader that the person blamed was in fact responsible through poor and inefficient management, particularly where the article as a whole raises countervailing matters questioning the third party's credibility and suggesting alternative causes.
2An offer to make amends under s 18 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) may be reasonable even where it does not include removal of the article or an offer of compensation, provided the corrections made to the article adequately address the alleged defamatory imputations, the apology (even if conditional in form) is sufficient in context, and the overall offer is proportionate to the seriousness of the alleged harm — assessed objectively having regard to all circumstances including the delay in raising the complaint.
