MEDIA | TheBrief

media, defamation & Privacy

determining serious harm could minimise defamation costs

Preliminary hearings to determine serious harm in defamation proceedings can be of clear benefit in minimising costs in defamation claims. However, defendants must act judiciously in applying for such hearings in all but the most trivial of claims. As illustrated in last year’s decision in Bottrill v Graham (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 221, a failed preliminary hearing will significantly add to, not reduce, the already high costs of defamation proceedings. Early serious harm determina

By Nathan Buck

The brief - the new legal platform authored by legal professionals

The Brief is now live and Australia is the first international edition for this pioneering platform designed for the legal profession to author commentary and insights on the law and how those laws have been practiced within judicial environments. The Brief is a response to an evolving media landscape, combined with a growing problem in legal communications being, the difficulty qualified legal professionals and PR teams face in placing accurate contextually precise stories,

By CJ DORE

The brief - the new legal platform authored by legal professionals

defamation paperwork to the letter of the law in geelong

The Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Reiter v News Corp Australia Pty Ltd & Anor (2025) VSC 54 provides a clear illustration of how defamation proceedings can fail before any assessment of truth, falsity, or reputational harm is reached. The case did not turn on whether the published allegations were defamatory. Instead, it turned on whether the plaintiff followed the mandatory statutory pathway that must be completed before a defamation claim can be heard at all. The de

By CJ DORE

the pen is mightier than the scalpel - Surgeon not defamed

In a high‑profile defamation dispute heard over many months in the Federal Court of Australia, orthopaedic surgeon Dr Munjed Al Muderis sued Nine Network Australia Pty Limited and associated publications. The Federal Court’s decision in Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd marks the first successful reliance on the public interest defence under section 29A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The case arose from a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Age and The Sydney

By CJ DORE

the pen is mightier than the scalpel - Surgeon not defamed

How voices are heard in a new defamation era

The Brief has created a new legal media flagship as Australia’s defamation framework has entered a new phase. Although The Brief offers insight across all areas of legal practice, it's the area of defamation that has the most recognisable association with the realm of media. Recent reforms have sharpened thresholds, clarified serious harm, and recalibrated responsibility across publishers, platforms, and participants in public discourse. These changes do not signal a retreat

By CJ DORE

the ai-lephant in the room

In the legal world there is currently a mixture of desire for AI and doubt about what it actually is within law, and whether it provides value or pure risk. I want to address some of the conjecture about AI based on experience, and how it was used at appropriate times for appropriate purposes in the year-long build process of The Brief platform. When such a formalised industry as law has been understood and practiced within an agreed construct for hundreds of years, there wil

By CJ DORE

How voller set the scene for digital responsibility change

The litigation that came to be known as Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd arose out of circumstances that were already deeply confronting. Dylan Voller was a former youth detainee whose treatment in detention was exposed in the ABC Four Corners program investigation, Australia’s Shame. The broadcast revealed images and practices that shocked the public and led directly to a Royal Commission into youth detention in the Northern Territory. background Following the broadcast, Mr

By CJ DORE

murdoch vs crikey - an ordinary australian

In August 2022, Lachlan Murdoch commenced defamation proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Private Media Pty Ltd, the publisher of the online outlet Crikey. The case arose from an opinion article authored by Crikey’s political editor, Bernard Keane, addressing the Murdoch family’s media influence and its perceived role in coverage of the 6 January 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. Defamation Law Applied Without Status The proceeding attracted immediate

By CJ DORE

ANNOUNCEMENT - The Brief has officially launched in Australia and is now accepting submissions and press releases from legal professionals and PR

Implementation of THE NEW digital DEFAMATION FRAMEWORK

Australian defamation law has undergone a sustained period of reform, driven by the challenges of digital publication. Traditionally developed for newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters, the law has been increasingly tested by social media platforms, online forums, and user-generated content. Courts and legislators have been forced to confront whether operators of online systems – search engines, forums, and hosting services – can be treated as publishers, and how liability

By CJ DORE

crown-use exemption trumps copyright infringement

In a significant intellectual-property dispute, Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (ANC), a subsidiary of News Corp Australia and operator of Sky News Australia, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against media-monitoring service provider Isentia Pty Ltd. Background The case arose from the distribution, as alleged by ANC, of ANC’s broadcast and digital content to Commonwealth and State government clients. In plain terms, ANC contended that Isentia collected

By THE BRIEF EDITORIAL

How voller set the scene for digital responsibility change

By CJ DORE