Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Voller v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Voller v Australian News Channel Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 766

Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Voller v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Voller v Australian News Channel Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 766

Each defendant was a publisher of the third-party Facebook comments because it operated a public Facebook page for commercial purposes, invited and encouraged comments, and had the capacity to prevent or delay publication to the general readership by hiding comments pending moderation. In relation to the general readership, each defendant was a first or primary publisher because it provided the forum, encouraged engagement, could effectively control the publication of comments before release to the general readership, and the relevant posts were more likely than not to attract defamatory comments. The plaintiff therefore established the publication element of defamation against each...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Hearing of a Separate Question Concerning the Publication Element of the Cause of Action of Defamation in Respect of Facebook Comments by Third Party Users
Outcome
Separate question answered in favour of the plaintiff; publication element established against each defendant.
Legal Topics
['publication Element of Defamation' 'public Facebook Page Liability' 'third Party User Comments' 'primary Publisher and Subordinate Publisher' 'innocent Dissemination' 'separate Question']
['defamation' 'torts' 'media Law' 'internet and Social Media Law'] ['publication Element of Defamation' 'public Facebook Page Liability' 'third Party User Comments' 'primary Publisher and Subordinate Publisher' 'innocent Dissemination' 'separate Question']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Hearing of a Separate Question Concerning the Publication Element of the Cause of Action of Defamation in Respect of Facebook Comments by Third Party Users

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff established the publication element of defamation against each defendant in respect of Facebook comments by third-party users alleged to be defamatory.' 'Whether media companies operating public Facebook pages were publishers, and in particular primary or first publishers, of third-party comments posted on those pages.' 'Whether innocent dissemination under s 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) arose if the defendants were subordinate or secondary publishers.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant was a publisher of the third-party Facebook comments because it operated a public Facebook page for commercial purposes, invited and encouraged comments, and had the capacity to prevent or delay publication to the general readership by hiding comments pending moderation. In relation to the general readership, each defendant was a first or primary publisher because it provided the forum, encouraged engagement, could effectively control the publication of comments before release to the general readership, and the relevant posts were more likely than not to attract defamatory comments. The plaintiff therefore established the publication element of defamation against each...

Court Disposition

Separate question answered in favour of the plaintiff; publication element established against each defendant.

Orders

  • ['The Court answers the following question in the following manner: "Whether the plaintiff has established the publication element of the cause of action of defamation against the defendant in respect of each of the Facebook comments by third-party users?" Answer: Yes' "The defendant in each proceeding shall jointly...