Someone Has Defamed You. Before You Decide Whether to Sue, Here Is What Queensland Courts Can Actually Award.

By Damon Laffin, Director | Odyssey Legal | Queensland | Defamation

The most common question in a first defamation consultation is not about the legal test, the available defences, or the pleading requirements. It is simpler than that: is it worth it?

That is the right question to ask. Defamation litigation is expensive, slow, and public. The answer depends on a clear-eyed assessment of what a court can actually award if the claim succeeds, weighed against the cost and disruption of getting there. That assessment requires an understanding of how Queensland courts approach the three heads of damages available in defamation proceedings: general damages for non-economic loss, aggravated damages, and special damages for economic loss.

This article sets out the current damages framework under the *Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)*, including the $520,000 cap on non-economic loss that took effect from 1 July 2026; how aggravated damages work and what conduct triggers them; what special damages require and how rarely they are awarded; and the factors that courts use to assess quantum within each head.

The Starting Point: Serious Harm

Before any question of damages arises, a plaintiff must establish that the defamatory publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation: section 10A of the *Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) *(Act). For an excluded corporation, serious harm must consist of serious financial loss.

This threshold, introduced by the Defamation (Model Provisions) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2021, replaced the previous common law presumption that damage flows from defamation. A plaintiff who cannot establish serious harm has no cause of action, regardless of how clearly defamatory the publication was.

The serious harm threshold also influences the quantum of damages once established. Section 34 of the Act requires the court to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the aggrieved person and the amount of damages awarded. This means the assessment of what serious harm the publication caused is not just a threshold question. It also sets the ceiling for what a rational damages award can look like.

Serious harm may be established by inference from the circumstances of publication without requiring the plaintiff to call direct before-and-after evidence of their reputation. In Latham v Greenwich [2026] FCAFC 82, the Full Court of the Federal Court confirmed this approach and identified eight non-exhaustive considerations relevant to the inferential assessment, including the gravity of the defamatory imputations, the extent of publication and likely republication, whether a prompt apology was published and to what audience, the reputation of the publisher, the medium and permanence of the publication, the plaintiff’s existing reputation in the relevant sector, the identity of those to whom the matter was published, and the inherent probabilities generally.

Under section 34 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), the court must ensure there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained and the damages awarded. Harm must be proportionate to recovery at every stage of the assessment.

Head 1: General Damages for Non-Economic Loss

General damages in defamation proceedings compensate the plaintiff for the three classic heads of non-economic harm identified in the authorities: consolation for the personal distress and hurt caused by the publication, reparation for the harm done to the plaintiff’s personal and business reputation, and vindication of the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of the public.

In assessing general damages, courts take into account the seriousness of the defamatory imputations and the gravity of the allegations made, the breadth of publication and the size of the audience reached, the prominence of the publication and how it was presented, the plaintiff’s existing reputation in the relevant community, and the extent to which the publication caused or is likely to cause lasting harm.

The $520,000 cap

Section 35(1) of the *Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)* caps the amount of general damages for non-economic loss that can be awarded in defamation proceedings at the maximum damages amount, adjusted from time to time. By declaration of the Attorney-General published in the Queensland Government Gazette on 12 June 2026, the maximum damages amount is $520,000 from 1 July 2026.

Three points about this cap are frequently misunderstood.

What the $520,000 cap does and does not do

● The cap applies only to damages for non-economic loss. It does not cap special damages for economic loss, which are assessed and awarded separately.

● The $520,000 figure is a ceiling, not a benchmark. Section 35(1) expressly states that the maximum amount is to be awarded only in the most serious cases. An award at or near the cap requires harm of exceptional gravity and breadth.

● Under the 2021 reforms, aggravated damages must be assessed and awarded separately from general damages for non-economic loss: section 35(2). This means the cap on general damages does not include aggravated damages. Where aggravated damages are warranted, they are additional to the general damages award, which is itself capped at $520,000.

The cap is indexed and adjusted annually. In Greenwich v Latham, decided at trial in September 2024, the applicable cap was $443,000. The current figure of $520,000 applies from 1 July 2026 and will be reviewed again in 2027.

Head 2: Aggravated Damages

Aggravated damages are not a separate category of harm from general damages. They are an increase to the general damages award, warranted by the defendant’s conduct before, during, or after publication, which has aggravated the harm to the plaintiff’s reputation or feelings beyond what the publication itself caused.

Under the 2021 reforms, aggravated damages must be assessed and quantified separately from the general damages award: section 35(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The cap on general damages for non-economic loss does not limit the amount of aggravated damages that can be awarded.

Conduct that can give rise to aggravated damages

Points of aggravation commonly considered by Queensland courts

● Continuing to publish the defamatory matter after receiving a concerns notice or being put on notice of the plaintiff’s complaint.

● Republishing the defamatory matter on additional platforms or to additional audiences after the complaint is made.

● Conducting the defence in a way that aggravates the harm, including raising a plea of justification (truth) that is pursued without reasonable basis and ultimately fails, persisting in calling evidence or making submissions that amplify the defamatory allegations without justification.

● Failing to apologise or retract when the falsity of the publication becomes apparent.

● Making threats or demands in correspondence that exacerbate the plaintiff’s distress.

● Using the litigation itself as an opportunity to repeat or elaborate on the defamatory allegations.

A failure to apologise is not automatically a point of aggravation. Courts recognise that a defendant who genuinely believes the publication was true is entitled to defend the claim on that basis without the absence of an apology being held against them. The conduct must be improper, unjustifiable, or lacking in good faith.

The strategic consequences of aggravated damages for defendants are significant. A vigorous defence of a defamation claim carries real risk. Pursuing a truth defence that ultimately fails, engaging in pre-trial correspondence that is aggressive or threatening, or conducting cross-examination in a way that doubles down on the defamatory allegations without proper evidentiary foundation can all increase the final award substantially.

The Full Court of the Federal Court confirmed this in Latham v Greenwich [2026] FCAFC 82, where Mr Latham’s post-publication conduct added $40,000 in aggravated damages to a $100,000 general damages award. The aggravating matters included rejecting the concerns notice; making no apology in circumstances where one was self-evidently called for; making a false public assertion that an apology had been given; and a course of further tweets and a radio interview that the primary judge described as rubbing salt in the wound.

Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050 and Latham v Greenwich [2026] FCAFC 82 (Full Federal Court: Colvin, Wheelahan and Abraham JJ)

A single tweet deleted within two hours and twenty minutes resulted in an award of $100,000 in general damages plus $40,000 in aggravated damages (total: $140,000), upheld unanimously on appeal. The general damages figure represented approximately a quarter of the then-applicable cap of $443,000. The aggravated damages award reflected the rejection of a concerns notice, the absence of any genuine apology, a false public claim that an apology had been made, and continued publication through further tweets and a radio interview after the defamation was established. The Full Court confirmed that under the 2021 reforms, aggravated damages must be assessed separately from general damages and sit entirely outside the cap. The decision is the most comprehensive appellate treatment to date of the serious harm element under the uniform defamation legislation.

Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] QSC 192

The Queensland Supreme Court dismissed the claim on the basis that the podcast episode did not cause or was not likely to cause serious harm to the plaintiff’s reputation as a standalone publication, given the extensive prior reporting of the same subject matter and the coronial findings already in the public domain. The decision is a significant illustration that even where a publication carries seriously defamatory imputations, the serious harm threshold is assessed against the full reputational context, and prior coverage of the same subject matter can be decisive.

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496

Geoffrey Rush was awarded approximately $2.9 million in total, including $850,000 for non-economic loss incorporating aggravated damages and substantial special damages for career and economic losses. The award reflected the gravity and extent of the publications, the persistence of the coverage, and the manner in which the defence was conducted. The Full Federal Court upheld the award on appeal.

Head 3: Special Damages for Economic Loss

Special damages compensate the plaintiff for actual, quantifiable economic loss caused by the defamatory publication. Unlike general damages, which are awarded at large and do not require the plaintiff to prove a specific dollar figure of loss, special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved with particularity.

There is no cap on special damages. A plaintiff who can establish, with evidence, that the publication caused them to lose a contract, lose employment, lose clients, or suffer measurable economic harm is entitled to recover those losses in full, subject to the ordinary principles of causation and remoteness.

In practice, special damages are difficult to recover. The causation requirement is strict: the plaintiff must demonstrate that the economic loss flowed directly from the defamatory publication rather than from any other cause. A business that loses clients following a defamatory review must be able to establish, through evidence, that the loss of those specific clients was caused by the review and not by other market or competitive factors.

The pleading requirements are also demanding. Under rule 155 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)*, a claim for special damages must identify the circumstances giving rise to the loss and the basis for the amount claimed.

A global assertion of economic harm without particulars identifying the specific loss and its connection to the publication will not satisfy this requirement, as confirmed in Robertson v Dogz Online [2011] QSC 158, where Ann Lyons J made clear that even non-economic loss must be stated with some measure of quantification and that defendants are entitled to know the full extent of the damages claimed.

Factors That Reduce the Damages Award

*Section 38 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)* sets out factors in mitigation of damages that courts must take into account when assessing the award. These include:

● Whether the defendant made an apology about the publication or a correction of the defamatory matter before the proceedings were commenced, and if so, the nature, extent, and manner of publication of that apology or correction.

● Whether the defendant made an offer to make amends under section 15 that was not accepted by the aggrieved person.

● Whether the aggrieved person has already recovered damages or brought and settled proceedings in relation to another publication of matter having the same or substantially similar meaning.

● The extent to which the plaintiff’s reputation was already damaged in the relevant respect before the publication complained of.

A genuine apology published before proceedings are commenced is one of the most effective tools for reducing the damages award. Courts treat it both as evidence of the defendant’s good faith and as a factor that diminishes the extent of harm remaining to be compensated at the time of the award.

What Courts Cannot Award

Section 37 of the* Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)* expressly prohibits the award of exemplary or punitive damages in defamation proceedings. Damages in defamation are compensatory in character. The purpose is to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in had the publication not been made, not to punish the defendant beyond what is necessary to achieve that compensation.

Section 36 provides that a court must generally disregard the malice or other state of mind of the defendant at the time of publication when assessing damages, except to the extent relevant to an award of aggravated damages. The fact that a defendant published with malicious intent does not, of itself, increase the general damages award. What matters is the harm caused to the plaintiff, not the motivation of the defendant.

So Is It Worth It?

That question cannot be answered by reference to a damages table. It depends on the seriousness of the imputations, the breadth of publication, the evidence available to establish harm, whether the defendant is likely to raise an aggravated damages argument through their conduct, and critically, the economic loss that can be proved with particularity.

What the framework tells us is this. A plaintiff in Queensland who establishes serious harm from a publication that carried genuinely serious imputations, was widely distributed, and was defended in a manner that aggravated the harm, can recover substantial damages: general damages up to $520,000 for non-economic loss, aggravated damages assessed separately and without a cap if the defendant’s conduct warrants them, and uncapped special damages if actual economic loss can be proved.

A plaintiff who establishes defamation by a minor publication to a small audience, with no evidence of economic loss and a defendant who apologised early and conducted the proceedings responsibly, is likely to recover a modest award that may not justify the cost of litigation.

The honest assessment of where a particular claim sits on that spectrum, made before a concerns notice is served, is one of the most valuable things a defamation lawyer can provide.

Considering a defamation claim in Queensland?

Odyssey Legal provides honest, strategic advice on the merits and potential value of defamation claims across Queensland, including the realistic assessment of damages before proceedings are commenced. Contact us to discuss your situation.

Damon Laffin is the Legal Practice Director at Odyssey Legal, a Queensland boutique litigation and business law firm.

Odyssey Legal acts for businesses and individuals across a wide variety of defamation and injurious falsehood disputes.

07 5370 8759 | info@odysseylegal.com.au | odysseylegal.com.au

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the $520,000 cap what most successful plaintiffs receive?

No. The $520,000 maximum is reserved for the most serious cases. The majority of successful defamation claims result in awards well below that figure, often in the range of $50,000 to $200,000 for general damages, depending on the gravity of the imputations and the extent of publication. Awards at or near the cap require exceptional circumstances.

Can I recover the money I lost from losing clients or contracts?

Yes, but only if you can establish with evidence that the specific economic loss was caused by the defamatory publication and not by other factors. Special damages for economic loss must be specifically pleaded with particulars identifying the loss and its connection to the publication. General assertions of lost business without supporting evidence will not be sufficient.

Does it help my case if the defendant refuses to apologise?

A refusal to apologise is not automatically a point of aggravation. Courts recognise that a defendant who believes the publication was true is entitled to defend on that basis. However, where a defendant refuses to apologise in circumstances where the falsity of the publication is or should have been apparent, that conduct can be taken into account in assessing whether aggravated damages are warranted.

What if the defendant keeps repeating the publication after being put on notice?

Continuing to publish defamatory matter after receiving a concerns notice or being put on notice of the complaint is one of the most clearly established points of aggravation. It demonstrates that the harm to the plaintiff’s reputation is ongoing and deliberate, and courts have consistently treated it as conduct warranting a separate award of aggravated damages.

Can a company sue for defamation and recover damages?

Only if it qualifies as an excluded corporation under section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), meaning it employs fewer than ten persons and is not a public body. An excluded corporation must establish serious financial loss rather than serious harm to reputation. In the absence of actual injury to reputation by way of loss of goodwill or clients, the resulting award for a corporation may be moderate or nominal.