• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Hemmant's List Hemmant's List

0735053969
Menu
Menu
  • About
    • The story of Hemmant and Lord Atkin
    • How does the list work?
    • How does a barrister join the list?
    • The Clerk
    • Emerging Art Program
    • Equitable Briefing
    • Former List Members (Judicial Appointments)
  • Barristers
  • Mediators & Arbitrators
  • Mediation Centre
  • Areas of Practice
      • Administrative & Public Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Appellate
      • Civil Litigation
      • Commercial Law
      • Crime
      • Employment & Industrial Relations
      • Equity & Trusts
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Human rights law
      • Inquests & Inquiries
      • Intellectual property law
      • International law
      • Marine law
      • Medical Negligence
      • Native Title Law
      • Personal Injuries and Health Law
      • Property Law
      • Resources, Construction & Infrastructure Law
      • Taxation Law
  • NEWS

NEWS

What does the Rebel Wilson case mean for statutory caps on damages?

December 13, 2018

List Member, Alex Katsikalis comments “When the uniform defamation laws were first introduced, some commentators feared that the inclusion of a statutory cap limiting non-economic loss would allow media outlets to view defamatory publications as simply a business cost they could predict and account for. (Rolph D, “A Critique of the National, Uniform Defamation Laws” (2008) 16 TLJ 207, 243.)

Following Rebel Wilson’s defamation case where the Victorian Court of Appeal held that the statutory cap does not apply where aggravated damages are warranted, (Bauer Media Pty Ltd v Wilson [No 2] [2018] VSCA 154, [248]-[250]) those early concerns have arguably been put to bed. As those concerns are eased, however, countervailing fears emerge in their place.

The rationale behind a statutory cap in the first place – which includes keeping the amount of damages won in defamation cases comparable to those won in personal injury cases (Bauer Media Pty Ltd v Wilson [No 2] [2018] VSCA 154, [175]) – may have been weakened by the interpretation of the law made in cases such as Rebel Wilson’s. In response, the wording of section 35 of the Defamation Act (Qld) should be updated to clarify the legislature’s intention”.

Share
  • Linkedin
  • Facebook
  • Gmail

Contact the Clerk

Hemmant's List Centre Level 6 Santos Place 32 Turbot Street Brisbane QLD 4000
+61 7 3505 3969 admin@hemmantslist.com.au
Submit a Briefing Request   Online Briefing
LinkedIn

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

© 2025 Hemmant's List
  • Facility Bookings
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
ABN 87 612 554 551
Web Design by iCreate Advertising