Business Law: Defamation Case Analysis - Qld Corruption Files Report

This report provides a detailed analysis of a defamation case involving Marina Salo, AAmazing Webhosting, and Patrick Holtz. The case centers on an article published on the AAmazing Webhosting website, Qld Corruption Files, and a signboard erected by Holtz, which allegedly defamed Salo. The report examines the legal issues, including whether Salo can successfully sue for defamation, considering the elements of defamation, standing to sue, and prima facie cause of action. It also explores the potential defenses available to the defendants and discusses the possible remedies. The analysis delves into the application of relevant laws, such as the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), and assesses the defamatory nature of Holtz's statements, the publication of the statements, and the identification of Salo as the defamed party. The report concludes with a discussion of the likely outcome of the litigation based on the presented facts and legal arguments. The report is contributed by a student to be published on the website Desklib, a platform which provides all the necessary AI based study tools for students.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Basic Facts and Summary..............................................................................................2
Issues..............................................................................................................................2
Issue 1: Can plaintiff successfully sue the defendant/defendants for defamation?....2
Sub issue 1: does the plaintiff have standing to sue?.............................................4
Sub issue 2: does plaintiff have a prima facie cause of action against the
defendant/ defendants?.......................................................................................................4
Sub issue 2a: has a defamatory statement actually made?.....................................6
Sub issue 2b: Has the matter been published by the Defendant?...........................7
Sub issue 2c: The matter identifies, or is capable of identifying, the plaintiff as
the person defamed............................................................................................................7
Issue 2: Any defences available to defendant............................................................8
Issue 3: Remedies.......................................................................................................9
Conclusion......................................................................................................................9
Bibliography.................................................................................................................10

2BUSINESS LAW
Basic Facts and Summary
Marina Salo, the plaintiff of the defamation case states that she has been defamed by
AAmazing Webhosting and Patrick Holtz. Patrick Holtz has put up a defamatory article on
Marina on the AAmazing Webhosting website called Qld Corruption Files, along with a
signboard in front of his house that asks people to read his article on the AAmazing
Webhosting website and also refers to Marina being a corrupt as a CEO of the Assisting
Homeless Inc.
Marina Salo and Patrick Holtz were classmates at the Queensland University and he
have had personal grudges against Marina for years which he has been taking out lately on
the internet as well as by erecting the signboard. Marina intends to contest the situation at a
court of law. Therefore, in this regard, the issues, applicable law and its application on the
case needs to be discussed pertaining to defamation and its defences, finally citing a
conclusion that can be expected from the litigation.
Issues
Issue 1: Can plaintiff successfully sue the defendant/defendants for defamation?
Rule
Defamation is said to take place when the defendant communicates anything
defamatory or demeaning about a plaintiff to a third party, orally or in writing, by way of
cartoons, pictures, posters, advertisements, internet postings, et cetera; degrading the
reputation or goodwill of the plaintiff as held in Monson v Tussauds Ltd1. A prima facie
cause of action can be brought against the defendant if it is found that the defendant has
communicated the defamatory statement with a third person that is related to the plaintiff2.
1 Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671, 692.
2 M Davies and I Malkin, Focus: Torts (LexisNexis, 8th ed, 2017).

3BUSINESS LAW
It becomes necessary to determine whether the defamatory statement was of such
nature that it could have been easily understood by any ordinary reasonable reader and
such person would think less of the plaintiff based on the defamatory statement as discussed
in Farquhar v Bottom3.
As discussed in the case of Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd it has been
discussed that the intention of the defendant is not important to establish the fact that he have
defamed the plaintiff4.
Free speech and defamation must be differentiated as the former involves
statements that are true to the best knowledge of the defendant who must have the evidence to
support it, while defamation involve statements that are false and mostly communicated with
an intention to degrade the reputation of the plaintiff5.
Application
In the given case, Marina Salo has been defamed by Patrick Holtz in his article
published under the AAmazing Webhosting website called Qld Corruption Files. The article
clearly mentions that Marina Salo, the CEO of the charity organisation, the Assisting
Homeless Inc. is of bad moral character as she was involved in student cheating scandal in
her college days in the Queensland University. He accuses Marina of being indiscipline and
dishonest which are serious allegations. He also points out that her grades were high even
though her notes were ‘bad’. As per the elements of defamation, Holtz put out statements that
are degrading for Marina’s reputation.
Holtz had put up a billboard that points out the corruption involved with the ‘CEO’ of
the ‘Logan homeless assistance charity’, which was pointing directly towards Marina Salo.
The billboard mentioned the web link of the article that Holtz had put up in the AAmazing
Webhosting website called Qld Corruption Files that had the elaborate defamatory
3 Farquhar v Bottom (1980) 2 NSWLR 380 by Hunt J at [20].
4 Chakravarti v Advertiser NewspapersLtd (1998) 193 CLR 519 at 545.
5 M Davies and I Malkin, Focus: Torts (LexisNexis, 8th ed, 2017).

4BUSINESS LAW
statements on Marina. The contents of the article have no solid evidence as to prove that the
statements were true. They were only the personal opinion of Patrick Holtz and hence should
not be confused with the right to free speech of an individual for a free speech should be
backed by evidence to prove its truth.
Sub issue 1: does the plaintiff have standing to sue?
Marina Salo certain bears the right to sue Patrick Holtz along with AAmazing
Webhosting Pty Ltd for her claim satisfy all the elements of defamation, that constitutes that
Holtz’s statement carries the imputation of defaming her by stating false information about
her character to the public at large. She can sue Holtz for his article clearly mentions her
name along with her designation as the CEO of the Assisting Homeless Inc. Lastly, her claim
against defamation would be reasonable as the defamatory statement was communicated to
third party by way of publication over the internet as well as by erecting the defamatory
billboard in front of Holtz’s house.
Sub issue 2: does plaintiff have a prima facie cause of action against the defendant/
defendants?
Rule
To have a prima facie cause of action, it is necessary that the three elements of
defamation are met:
 The matter or statement has an imputation of defamation;
 The statement must be adequate to identify that it is particularly the plaintiff
who has been defamed6; and
 The defamatory statement has been communicated to a third person as held in
Dow Jones v Gutnik7.
6 M Davies and I Malkin, Focus: Torts (LexisNexis, 8th ed, 2017).
7 Dow Jones v Gutnik (2002) 210 CLR 575 at [25]-[27].

5BUSINESS LAW
In case the above factors are fulfilled by the defendant, the plaintiff shall have a prima
facie ground to bring in action of defamation against the defendant.
In addition, the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) states that the publication as well as
republication of the defamatory statement holds the defendant as well as the third party who
republished the statement would be held guilty. The Act does not make it mandatory to
establish the malicious intent of the defendant as well as the re-publisher, that they published
the defamatory statement against the plaintiff with a purpose to degrade his reputation8.
Application
In this case, Patrick Holtz’s statement in the article that he had put up in AAmazing
Webhosting website called Qld Corruption Files as well as the billboard that he had erected
in front of his mentioning corruption allegation to the CEO of Logan Homeless Assisting
charity which is Marina along with directing people to check out the Qld Corruption File
article that clearly implicate his intentional defaming Marina Salo. His article clearly
mentioned that Marina Salo was of bad moral character as she was involved in student
cheating scandal in her college days in the Queensland University. He accuses Marina of
being indiscipline and dishonest. She was also accused of being promiscuous for dating a
number of men in her college days. Lastly, Holtz raised a doubtful finger on Marina’s role as
a CEO of the charitable organisation and whether the audit has been carried out by someone
covering up her misuse of the charity fund. There are serious allegations to which Holtz does
not produce any evidence. These are his personal opinion on Marina which can be guessed to
have come out of his personal grudge against Marina since their college days as Holtz was
‘kicked out’ of the business school. Lastly it is quite evident that Holtz communicated the
defamatory article to the public at large by way of publishing the article on the internet as
well as by erecting the billboard in front of his house. It can be easily proved by the fact that
8 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)

6BUSINESS LAW
the website has been viewed by 13,000 viewers who read by the false allegation against
Marina.
In addition, Marina also have a prima facie cause of action against the AAmazing
Webhosting Pty Ltd for letting Holtz publish the defamatory article against Marina even
when she pointed it out to the company that Holtz had no evidence to prove the truth of the
alleged statements.
Therefore Marina shall have a prima facie cause of action against Patrick Holtz and
the AAmazing Webhosting Pty Ltd.
Sub issue 2a: has a defamatory statement actually made?
Rule
To constitute defamation,
 The matter or statement must have an imputation of defamation;
Application
The statement made by Holtz was clearly defamatory in nature for he mentioned that
Marina Salo was of bad moral character as she was involved in student cheating scandal in
her college days in the Queensland University. He accuses Marina of being indiscipline and
dishonest which are serious allegations. He also points out that her grades were high even
though her notes were ‘bad’. Holtz had put up a billboard that points out the corruption
involved with the ‘CEO’ of the ‘Logan homeless assistance charity’, which was pointing
directly towards Marina Salo. The billboard mentioned the web link of the article that Holtz
had put up in the AAmazing Webhosting website called Qld Corruption Files that had the
elaborate defamatory statements on Marina. Such derogatory statements are adequate enough
to degrade a person’s reputation.

7BUSINESS LAW
The contents of the article have no solid evidence as to prove that the statements were
true. They were only the personal opinion of Patrick Holtz and hence it can be held that
matter is in fact defamatory as they are mere false allegation with a grain of doubt.
Sub issue 2b: Has the matter been published by the Defendant?
Rule
 The element to constitute a tort of defamation states the defamatory matter must be
communicated to a third person.
Application
Patrick Holtz not only published the defamatory article on the AAmazing Webhosting
website called Qld Corruption Files which has been viewed by 13,000 viewers, he had also
put up a billboard in front of his house directing people to visit the website to read the article
on Marina. Therefore, such an approach of Holtz is adequate enough to constitute that he had
published and communicated the defamatory statement against Marina.
Sub issue 2c: The matter identifies, or is capable of identifying, the plaintiff as the
person defamed
Rule
 It is essential to prove that the plaintiff could be identified from the defamatory
statement held by the defendant.
Application
The article written by Patrick Holtz clearly mentioned Marina Salo’s name and
identity along with the billboard that mentioned her designation of CEO with the Logan
Homeless Assistance Charity. This is adequate enough to implicate and identify this Marina
Salo as the one who is being talked about in Holtz’s defamatory article.

8BUSINESS LAW
Issue 2: Any defences available to defendant
Rule
Section 24 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) states the provision for the defences that
are available to the defendant in case the essential elements of the tort of defamation is
satisfied against the defendant9. The provision gives a benefit of doubt to the defendant as
long as he can cite any defence against his deeds. A true statement cannot be considered to
be defamatory. Similarly, a person cannot be refrained from exercising his right to free
speech as long as it is exercised with moderation10. Other defences like contextual truth,
Absolute privileges, qualified privileges, honest opinion and innocent dissemination are
also sometimes available with the defendant if he can satisfy the grounds11. As held in Rofe v
Smith Newspapers, no person shall be prosecuted for telling the truth and the truth not should
be seen as lowering the reputation of a person against whom such truth has been spoken12.
Application
In this case, Holtz would not have any defences available with him as the defamatory
statement made by him were devoid of any truthfulness. The statements were made solely on
his own perception on Marina. It can be easily proved by the counsel of the plaintiff that
Holtz statements were nothing more than allegations that came out of personal grudges that
he had against Marina since their college days.
In addition, the website company however, could argue on the point that it had no
option other rather relying on its client’s submission to it pertaining to the article which they
had no option to check whether it was right or wrong.
Issue 3: Remedies
Rule
9 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 24
10 T. K Tobin and Michael Sexton, Australian Defamation Reports 1973-1996 (Butterworths, 1997).
11 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s26, 27, 30, 31, 32 respectively
12 Rofe v Smith Newspapers (1924) SR (NSW) 4 at 21-2 per Street ACJ.

9BUSINESS LAW
Under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), the plaintiff who succeeds to prove a tort of
defamation against himself, he has the right to ask the defendant to take the defamatory
articles down along with asking for monetary compensatory13.
Application
Marina Salo would be eligible to ask Patrick Holtz to take down the defamatory
articles down and also to pay her a compensation amount for degrading her reputation.
Conclusion
Therefore,
i) Marina would be able to successfully sue Patrick Holtz and AAmazing Webhosting Pty
Ltd.
ii) Patrick Holtz would have no defence with him while AAmazing Webhosting Pty Ltd can
defend itself to a certain limit.
iii) Marina shall have a remedy by which she can ask the defendants to take down the
defamatory articles as well as pay her compensation for degrading her reputation.
13 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)

10BUSINESS LAW
Bibliography
Books/Journal
Davies, M and I Malkin, Focus: Torts (LexisNexis, 8th ed, 2017)
Tobin, T. K and Michael Sexton, Australian Defamation Reports 1973-1996 (Butterworths,
1997)
Case laws
Chakravarti v Advertiser NewspapersLtd (1998) 193 CLR 519 at 545
Dow Jones v Gutnik (2002) 210 CLR 575 at [25]-[27]
Farquhar v Bottom (1980) 2 NSWLR 380 by Hunt J at [20]
Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671, 692
Rofe v Smith Newspapers (1924) SR (NSW) 4 at 21-2 per Street ACJ
Legislation
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)