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 decision demonstrates that in Victorian defamation law, procedure is not a technical afterthought. It is a jurisdictional gateway.

The Article

Central to this matter is an article published by the Geelong Advertiser which is driven by the account of a professor who detailed a "bizarre interaction" with Kurt Reiter, randomly while in transit. The professor recounts Reiter's claims of connections with high profile corporate identities and music celebrities.

A follow up email was received from Reiter at a later date, at which point the professor commenced some homework on the mystery man. The subsequent findings uncovered the true identity of Reiter.

The article spells out that identity as a man with a criminal past associated with deception and convictions which lead to a prison sentence. The article goes on to detail that at times Reiter has claimed to be a legal professional, and at one point was the Liberal candidate for Bellarine.

Timeline of events

Pre publication contact

The timeline begins before the article was published. A journalist from the Geelong Advertiser, a News Corp publication, contacted Kurt Reiter by email on the day of publication. The journalist advised that an article concerning him was scheduled to be published that afternoon and requested comment by a specified early afternoon deadline.

Mr Reiter responded several times, stating that he required additional time to provide verification material and documentation. He requested that publication be delayed until the following day. Those requests were not accepted. The article was published later that afternoon.

At this stage, no legal process had commenced. The exchanges were part of a routine media comment process. Importantly, nothing in those communications alleged defamation, identified imputations, or asserted reputational harm. From a legal standpoint, these communications were pre litigation and informal.

Publication

The article was published under the headline referring to a “bizarre encounter” and included allegations that Mr Reiter had posed as a lawyer and claimed associations with high profile musicians. Publication is the event that triggers potential defamation liability, but it does not itself trigger court jurisdiction.

Under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), publication alone does not entitle a plaintiff to immediately commence proceedings.

Post publication response and commencement of proceedings

After publication, Mr Reiter moved quickly to litigation. He prepared and sent draft originating motions to the defendants and later filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Crucially, proceedings were commenced without first serving a concerns notice that complied with Part A of the Act, and without observing the mandatory 28 day waiting period.

The defendants responded not by defending the substance of the allegations, but by challenging whether the proceeding was competent to exist at all.

The statutory framework

The legal architecture governing this dispute is found in Part A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), introduced as part of the uniform defamation reforms.

The framework imposes three sequential procedural requirements before a court can hear a defamation claim:

1. A valid concerns notice must be served.

2. The notice must comply with specific content requirements.

3. Proceedings may not be commenced until 28 days after service, unless leave is granted.

   
   

These steps are not discretionary. They are mandatory preconditions to suit.

A concerns notice must identify the publication, specify the defamatory imputations relied upon, and provide details showing that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation.

The legislative purpose is to promote early resolution and to ensure that defendants know precisely the case they must answer before litigation begins.

Issues before the Court

The Court was asked to determine whether any of Mr Reiter’s communications satisfied these statutory thresholds.

Three categories of communication were examined:

• Pre publication emails with the journalist.

• Draft originating motions sent after publication.

• Document later described as a concerns notice.

The defendants argued that none of these activated the statutory process and that the proceeding was therefore premature and incompetent.

The Court’s findings

Associate Justice Goulden held that no valid concerns notice had been served.

The pre publication emails could not qualify because they occurred before publication and did not allege defamation, identify imputations, or address serious harm.

The draft originating motions failed because they did not clearly articulate the imputations relied upon and contained only general statements about reputational damage, without the statutory particularity required.

The later document labelled as a concerns notice also failed to comply. It did not properly identify the publication, did not clearly state the imputations, and did not explain serious harm in a structured or evidentiary way.

Even if one of those documents could have been treated as a valid notice, the Court found that proceedings were commenced before the 28 day waiting period had expired. No application for leave was made. That failure alone was sufficient to render the proceeding incompetent.

The defects were not capable of being cured by amendment because the statutory preconditions had never been satisfied.

The proceeding was summarily dismissed, and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

Procedural significance

This case illustrates that defamation law is not only about reputation. It is equally about sequencing.

The Act requires plaintiffs to slow down, define their case with precision, and give defendants a clear opportunity to respond before litigation commences. Courts will enforce that discipline strictly.

Pre publication interactions with journalists, even when tense or contested, do not substitute for statutory notice. Draft pleadings are not a workaround. Labels do not cure substantive defects.

Most significantly, the 28 day waiting period operates as a procedural gate. Commencing proceedings too early is not a minor irregularity. It deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Professional Significance

Reiter is a reminder that defamation proceedings can fail entirely without ever reaching questions of truth or falsity. The strongest case on substance will not be heard if the procedural foundation is absent.

For prospective plaintiffs, the decision underscores that the path to court is structured and deliberate.

Precision, timing, and compliance are not optional - they are the price of entry.

In defamation law, procedure does not merely shape the litigation. In cases like this, it determines whether litigation can exist at all.

Authored by Campbell Dore

Publisher

The Brief

campbell@thebrieflaw.com.au