Why a multimillion-dollar legal boom is running out of steam
The number of new defamation cases being filed in Australia has declined sharply since a boom five years ago, in a sign that costly court losses and recent law reforms may be deterring prospective plaintiffs.
The Federal Court, which historically heard almost no defamation cases, emerged in the past decade as the forum of choice for a string of famous litigants including Oscar winner Geoffrey Rush.
In 2020, at the peak of the Federal Court's defamation bonanza, 67 defamation cases were filed in its registries across the country. That figure dropped by more than half to 30 cases last year.
A decline in new defamation filings is also apparent in state courts over the past decade.
In 2014, 58 defamation cases were filed in the NSW Supreme Court, compared with 14 in 2020 and just six last year. This reflects the shift in cases to the Federal Court.
But the number of new defamation filings also declined in the NSW District Court: 58 new cases were filed in 2020, compared with 15 last year.
The District Court 'is the venue of choice for claims of a more modest nature', Judge Judith Gibson, one of the country's top defamation jurists, said in a recent decision.
A total of 46 defamation cases were initiated in the Victorian County Court in 2020, and a further 51 the following year. Last year, 26 new defamation matters were filed. This is roughly on par with the number filed a decade ago.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- The Advertiser
Judge denies Harvey Weinstein's bid for mistrial
A juror in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes trial has asked to be removed from the case because he felt his fellow jurors were treating a member of their panel in an "unfair and unjust" way, but the judge told him he had to keep deliberating. Judge Curtis Farber later on Friday denied a defence request for a mistrial, saying he believed the juror was simply expressing discomfort in the deliberation process, noting that he's the youngest on the 12-person panel. "This is nothing other than normal tensions during heated deliberations," Farber told the lawyers after the juror rejoined his peers. "Perhaps his youth makes him uncomfortable with conflict." The second day of deliberations ended on Friday without a verdict. Jurors are expected back in court Monday. Jurors reheard testimony from Weinstein's three accusers. They also reviewed other evidence, including medical records and emails. Twice on Friday, though, a juror requested to address the court without the other jurors present. The juror said he wanted to be excused from the trial because he was uncomfortable with how some jurors were acting toward another juror. But Farber denied the request, saying there were no more alternate jurors to replace him and, in any case, his concerns did not warrant being dismissed. The juror insisted, calling the treatment "unfair and unjust" even as he described the tension as "playground stuff" with jurors shunning another juror and talking behind their back. Weinstein's lawyer Arthur Aidala argued the jury should be told to stop deliberating while the court found out more about the concerns. He criticised the judge's questions to the concerned juror as "anaemic at best". "You didn't ask him one follow-up question," Aidala said. Manhattan prosecutor Nicole Blumberg said the judge acted appropriately by reminding jurors about the expectations for them — including that they not speak to anyone about the case unless all members of the jury are deliberating. The issue, she noted, does not appear to be hindering the jury's work, as the panel requested a readout of other testimony even after he raised concerns. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Weinstein was convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned in 2024, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge. Jurors heard more than five weeks of testimony, including lengthy testimony from three accusers. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 A juror in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes trial has asked to be removed from the case because he felt his fellow jurors were treating a member of their panel in an "unfair and unjust" way, but the judge told him he had to keep deliberating. Judge Curtis Farber later on Friday denied a defence request for a mistrial, saying he believed the juror was simply expressing discomfort in the deliberation process, noting that he's the youngest on the 12-person panel. "This is nothing other than normal tensions during heated deliberations," Farber told the lawyers after the juror rejoined his peers. "Perhaps his youth makes him uncomfortable with conflict." The second day of deliberations ended on Friday without a verdict. Jurors are expected back in court Monday. Jurors reheard testimony from Weinstein's three accusers. They also reviewed other evidence, including medical records and emails. Twice on Friday, though, a juror requested to address the court without the other jurors present. The juror said he wanted to be excused from the trial because he was uncomfortable with how some jurors were acting toward another juror. But Farber denied the request, saying there were no more alternate jurors to replace him and, in any case, his concerns did not warrant being dismissed. The juror insisted, calling the treatment "unfair and unjust" even as he described the tension as "playground stuff" with jurors shunning another juror and talking behind their back. Weinstein's lawyer Arthur Aidala argued the jury should be told to stop deliberating while the court found out more about the concerns. He criticised the judge's questions to the concerned juror as "anaemic at best". "You didn't ask him one follow-up question," Aidala said. Manhattan prosecutor Nicole Blumberg said the judge acted appropriately by reminding jurors about the expectations for them — including that they not speak to anyone about the case unless all members of the jury are deliberating. The issue, she noted, does not appear to be hindering the jury's work, as the panel requested a readout of other testimony even after he raised concerns. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Weinstein was convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned in 2024, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge. Jurors heard more than five weeks of testimony, including lengthy testimony from three accusers. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 A juror in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes trial has asked to be removed from the case because he felt his fellow jurors were treating a member of their panel in an "unfair and unjust" way, but the judge told him he had to keep deliberating. Judge Curtis Farber later on Friday denied a defence request for a mistrial, saying he believed the juror was simply expressing discomfort in the deliberation process, noting that he's the youngest on the 12-person panel. "This is nothing other than normal tensions during heated deliberations," Farber told the lawyers after the juror rejoined his peers. "Perhaps his youth makes him uncomfortable with conflict." The second day of deliberations ended on Friday without a verdict. Jurors are expected back in court Monday. Jurors reheard testimony from Weinstein's three accusers. They also reviewed other evidence, including medical records and emails. Twice on Friday, though, a juror requested to address the court without the other jurors present. The juror said he wanted to be excused from the trial because he was uncomfortable with how some jurors were acting toward another juror. But Farber denied the request, saying there were no more alternate jurors to replace him and, in any case, his concerns did not warrant being dismissed. The juror insisted, calling the treatment "unfair and unjust" even as he described the tension as "playground stuff" with jurors shunning another juror and talking behind their back. Weinstein's lawyer Arthur Aidala argued the jury should be told to stop deliberating while the court found out more about the concerns. He criticised the judge's questions to the concerned juror as "anaemic at best". "You didn't ask him one follow-up question," Aidala said. Manhattan prosecutor Nicole Blumberg said the judge acted appropriately by reminding jurors about the expectations for them — including that they not speak to anyone about the case unless all members of the jury are deliberating. The issue, she noted, does not appear to be hindering the jury's work, as the panel requested a readout of other testimony even after he raised concerns. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Weinstein was convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned in 2024, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge. Jurors heard more than five weeks of testimony, including lengthy testimony from three accusers. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 A juror in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes trial has asked to be removed from the case because he felt his fellow jurors were treating a member of their panel in an "unfair and unjust" way, but the judge told him he had to keep deliberating. Judge Curtis Farber later on Friday denied a defence request for a mistrial, saying he believed the juror was simply expressing discomfort in the deliberation process, noting that he's the youngest on the 12-person panel. "This is nothing other than normal tensions during heated deliberations," Farber told the lawyers after the juror rejoined his peers. "Perhaps his youth makes him uncomfortable with conflict." The second day of deliberations ended on Friday without a verdict. Jurors are expected back in court Monday. Jurors reheard testimony from Weinstein's three accusers. They also reviewed other evidence, including medical records and emails. Twice on Friday, though, a juror requested to address the court without the other jurors present. The juror said he wanted to be excused from the trial because he was uncomfortable with how some jurors were acting toward another juror. But Farber denied the request, saying there were no more alternate jurors to replace him and, in any case, his concerns did not warrant being dismissed. The juror insisted, calling the treatment "unfair and unjust" even as he described the tension as "playground stuff" with jurors shunning another juror and talking behind their back. Weinstein's lawyer Arthur Aidala argued the jury should be told to stop deliberating while the court found out more about the concerns. He criticised the judge's questions to the concerned juror as "anaemic at best". "You didn't ask him one follow-up question," Aidala said. Manhattan prosecutor Nicole Blumberg said the judge acted appropriately by reminding jurors about the expectations for them — including that they not speak to anyone about the case unless all members of the jury are deliberating. The issue, she noted, does not appear to be hindering the jury's work, as the panel requested a readout of other testimony even after he raised concerns. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Weinstein was convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned in 2024, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge. Jurors heard more than five weeks of testimony, including lengthy testimony from three accusers. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Sydney Morning Herald
2 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Former Victorian opposition leader John Pesutto served bankruptcy notice
John Pesutto has accepted a bankruptcy notice served to him yesterday, as the consequences of Liberal colleague Moira Deeming's successful defamation action against him continue to play out. One source close to the proceedings confirmed that the official notice had been served. Deeming successfully took Pesutto to Federal Court, which last December ruled he defamed her five times after an anti-transgender rights rally she organised in March 2023. That rally was unexpectedly gatecrashed by Neo-Nazis, and the court agreed with Deeming that in the aftermath, Pesutto defamed her as a Nazi sympathiser. Last month, a court ordered Pesutto to pay Deeming $2.3 million in legal costs by Friday, May 30, a deadline which he missed. Loading Only about one third of the money has been raised, including $212,000 via crowdfunding - and about $4000 of that in the past week. Under Australian bankruptcy law, Pesutto now has 20 days to either pay the $2.3 million in full or come to an arrangement where he can pay in instalments. Deeming's lawyers have previously said they plan to pursue third parties for costs if Pesutto is left bankrupt — including former premiers Jeff Kennett, Denis Napthine and Ted Baillieu and serving MPs Georgie Crozier and David Southwick.
The Age
2 days ago
- The Age
Former Victorian opposition leader John Pesutto served bankruptcy notice
John Pesutto has accepted a bankruptcy notice served to him yesterday, as the consequences of Liberal colleague Moira Deeming's successful defamation action against him continue to play out. One source close to the proceedings confirmed that the official notice had been served. Deeming successfully took Pesutto to Federal Court, which last December ruled he defamed her five times after an anti-transgender rights rally she organised in March 2023. That rally was unexpectedly gatecrashed by Neo-Nazis, and the court agreed with Deeming that in the aftermath, Pesutto defamed her as a Nazi sympathiser. Last month, a court ordered Pesutto to pay Deeming $2.3 million in legal costs by Friday, May 30, a deadline which he missed. Loading Only about one third of the money has been raised, including $212,000 via crowdfunding - and about $4000 of that in the past week. Under Australian bankruptcy law, Pesutto now has 20 days to either pay the $2.3 million in full or come to an arrangement where he can pay in instalments. Deeming's lawyers have previously said they plan to pursue third parties for costs if Pesutto is left bankrupt — including former premiers Jeff Kennett, Denis Napthine and Ted Baillieu and serving MPs Georgie Crozier and David Southwick.
