Defamation Concerns Notice Compliance in Victoria: When Missing Serious Financial Loss Particulars Defeats an Excluded Corporation’s Claim, and When an Instagram Post Still Falls Within the “Same Matter”

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2025] VSC 671 (S ECI 2024 05817), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing

Supreme Court of Victoria, Common Law Division, Major Torts List

Presiding Judge

Judd J

Cause of Action

Defamation proceeding arising from social media publications; interlocutory strike-out application concerning compliance with statutory pre-action requirements

Judgment Date

31 October 2025

Core Keywords

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Defamation Act 2005
Keyword 3: Concerns notice
Keyword 4: Excluded corporation
Keyword 5: Serious financial loss
Keyword 6: Social media publications

Background

The proceeding concerns a dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants arising out of a series of social media publications. The publications were said to be part of a prolonged online campaign that attacked the Plaintiffs’ personal and business reputation, with allegations framed in terms of dishonesty, criminality, incompetence, and moral unworthiness. The publications appeared across multiple Facebook pages and included one Instagram post. The statutory scheme required the Plaintiffs to serve a compliant concerns notice before commencing the proceeding, and the controversy in this interlocutory hearing centred on whether that threshold step had been met for each claim and each publication.

Core Disputes and Claims

The Court was required to determine two principal threshold questions about statutory compliance before the proceeding could properly continue:

1. Excluded corporation compliance dispute: Whether the concerns notice served on the First Defendant satisfied the additional statutory requirement for an excluded corporation by informing the publisher of the financial loss the corporation considered to be serious financial loss caused, or likely to be caused, by the publications.

2. Scope of “matter” dispute concerning later-discovered publication: Whether the Plaintiffs could sue on an Instagram publication that was not identified in the concerns notice, and whether the pleaded imputations arising from that Instagram post were substantially the same as those particularised in the concerns notice.

The Plaintiffs sought relief in defamation for harm to personal and business reputation arising from the publications, including relief based on imputations said to be conveyed by Facebook and Instagram content. The Defendants sought to strike out parts of the statement of claim, principally to exclude the Second Plaintiff’s claim and to exclude some or all of the pleading concerning the Instagram publication.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The dispute began in the practical world of small business quotations, renovation works, and the fragile trust that sits behind consumer-facing trades. According to the material referenced in the pre-action notice, the Second Defendant had engaged a renovation business to perform works on a property. The renovation business invited the Second Plaintiff to submit a quotation for joinery work. The Second Plaintiff provided a document described as an invoice for a deposit in the sum of AUD $33,000. The account given in the pre-action material was that the renovation business did not in fact engage the Second Plaintiff, no works commenced, and no part of the deposit was paid.

From there, the conflict did what modern disputes often do: it moved online, multiplied, and hardened into public narrative. Over months, social media posts and comments were said to portray the First Plaintiff and the Second Plaintiff as dishonest and dangerous. The publications were alleged to have been directed not only at the Plaintiffs’ competence but at their integrity, and to have escalated into ridicule, contempt, and even incitement by third parties responding online.

The decisive moments that pushed the dispute into litigation were not only the publications themselves, but the way the publications were said to operate as a campaign. The online environment amplified the sting: follower counts on Facebook pages, reposting across community groups, and the tendency for a defamatory allegation to become “sticky” once shared. The Plaintiffs’ strategic response was to commence defamation proceedings. But before any proceeding could be commenced, the statutory scheme required a compliant concerns notice. The quality of that notice became the battlefield before the merits could even be tested.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Plaintiffs relied upon a concerns notice dated 5 September 2024 addressed to the First Defendant, and a corresponding concerns notice addressed to the Second Defendant. The notice asserted a sustained campaign over approximately seven months, commencing in or around January 2024, calculated to destroy reputation and expose the Plaintiffs to hatred, ridicule, and contempt.

The notice identified multiple Facebook publications and particularised imputations said to arise, including allegations framed as:
– theft or misappropriation of money;
– abandoning paid projects;
– criminal damage to a vehicle;
– working with criminals and exploiting elderly clients;
– violent conduct and posing a danger to the public;
– poor workmanship and unprofessional conduct; and
– engaging in shady deals and fraudulent activities.

The notice also included an asserted “serious harm” section that referred to:
– the Plaintiffs’ prior good reputation as a reliable cabinet maker and competent tradesman;
– Facebook group member counts and page follower counts;
– reactions and third-party comments that included threats and racial abuse; and
– a claim that the publications went to the heart of professional integrity.

The Plaintiffs’ position on the Instagram issue was that the dispute concerned a sustained and vitriolic attack, that the scheme should not be applied rigidly to require every publication to be identified, and that the relevant question was the defamatory sting and whether later-discovered publications were the same or substantially the same as those already identified.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The First Defendant’s central evidentiary and legal position was procedural and statutory:
– the Second Plaintiff, as an excluded corporation, had to include in the concerns notice the financial loss it considered to be serious financial loss caused or likely to be caused;
– the notice did not do so at all, which meant there was no concerns notice within the statutory meaning for the Second Plaintiff’s claim;
– the defect could not be cured by later particulars or by a purposive gloss where the notice did not meet the conjunctive statutory criteria; and
– the limitation period was said to have passed, making a new notice incapable of curing the defect in time.

On the Instagram publication, the First Defendant argued:
– the Instagram publication and its imputations were not mentioned in the concerns notice;
– the imputations pleaded were not the same nor substantially similar; and
– the Act prevented commencement, and therefore prevented the pleaded reliance, for a publication outside the notice’s scope.

Core Dispute Points

1. Serious financial loss articulation dispute: Whether a concerns notice that asserts reputational harm, page follower numbers, and general harm to professional integrity can satisfy the requirement to inform the publisher of the excluded corporation’s serious financial loss.

2. “Mandatory” requirements dispute: Whether the statutory criteria operate as strict and conjunctive requirements, such that absence of a required category of information is fatal.

3. Further particulars mechanism dispute: Whether later-provided particulars can be treated as forming part of the concerns notice, and whether the further particulars pathway can salvage a notice that lacked required content.

4. Instagram “same matter” dispute: Whether a later-discovered publication not specified in the notice can still be sued upon as part of the “matter” where it carries the same or substantially the same imputations.

5. Substantial similarity dispute for particular imputations: Whether each pleaded imputation from the Instagram post is substantially the same as one already particularised, or whether some must be struck out.

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit evidence is the procedural vehicle through which parties take raw events and shape them into legally usable facts. In this interlocutory dispute, the affidavits functioned less as a contest about the truth of the publications and more as a contest about compliance, sequence, and the forensic meaning of documents.

The Plaintiffs’ affidavit material served to:
– identify the publications and their context;
– demonstrate the asserted seriousness of reputational harm; and
– support the proposition that the campaign and its sting were coherent across platforms.

The First Defendant’s affidavit material served to:
– anchor the statutory argument to the text of the concerns notice itself;
– show what was and was not articulated within the four corners of the notice; and
– ground the strike-out application on documentary insufficiency, rather than contested credibility.

A key strategic lesson sits in the boundary between facts and conclusions. An affidavit can assert that serious financial loss is likely, but the Act requires the concerns notice to inform the publisher of the financial loss the corporation considers to be serious financial loss. A bare assertion that serious financial loss is likely is not the same as informing a publisher what the loss is, how it is said to arise, and why it is serious.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions Regarding Affidavits

The procedural design of this kind of application rewards clarity and penalises vagueness. The Court’s approach demonstrates why judges often direct the exchange and filing of affidavit material early in interlocutory disputes:
– It forces parties to commit to a definable theory of compliance.
– It reduces the risk that an argument about statutory prerequisites becomes a shifting target.
– It creates an evidentiary record against which the Court can determine whether the proceeding should continue at all.

For litigants, the self-agency point is direct: if your case depends on a statutory gateway step, you must treat the gateway as a substantive battleground, not as an administrative formality. If you do not control the narrative of compliance, the opposing party will control it for you.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing of the proceeding, the Court dealt with interlocutory procedural arrangements and relief sought by summons. The key procedural features included:
– an application to strike out parts of the statement of claim concerning the Second Plaintiff’s defamation claim;
– an application to strike out parts of the pleading concerning the Instagram publication and specific imputations;
– an application for security for costs, which became unnecessary given the disposition on strike-out issues; and
– directions that resulted in affidavit evidence and written submissions being filed and relied upon.

The overall procedural posture demonstrates a common defamation trajectory: before truth, contextual truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege, or damages are tested, parties often litigate the statutory machinery that controls entry into the proceeding.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing functioned as a test of statutory logic applied to a document. The Court’s task was not to decide whether the publications were defamatory in the ordinary sense, but to decide whether the Plaintiffs had lawfully opened the door to litigation for each claim and each pleaded sting.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The dispute unfolded as a structured forensic debate about what the Act demands and what the Plaintiffs delivered.

1. The First Defendant’s attack line: The concerns notice, on its face, failed to set out the Second Plaintiff’s serious financial loss. The Act uses mandatory language, and the requirements are conjunctive. Without the required information, there is no concerns notice for the corporate claim, and the corporate pleading must be struck out.

2. The Plaintiffs’ defence line: The Act does not prescribe a rigid template for what constitutes sufficient information. The test should be treated as subjective and preliminary. The publisher could request particulars, and further particulars were in fact requested. On a purposive approach, the First Defendant had sufficient information overall before proceedings commenced.

3. The critical collision: The Court interrogated the nature of what was missing. This was not a debate about whether the financial loss was large enough. It was a debate about whether any financial loss was articulated at all as required by the Act.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidence was the concerns notice itself and what it did and did not contain. The notice described reputational harm, follower counts, and online hostility, but did not articulate any financial loss said to be serious financial loss for the excluded corporation.

The Court identified the gap in practical terms: follower numbers were mentioned, but there was no articulation of how those numbers translated into lost revenue, lost contracts, cancelled projects, inability to tender, increased costs, or any other quantifiable or describable financial consequence.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Court treated the statutory requirements as conjunctive and applied them as written. The Court determined that the notice did not comply with the corporate-specific requirement and that the defect was not cured by later particulars that still failed to articulate serious financial loss.

“It is clear that the concerns notice does not set out the financial loss that [the Second Plaintiff] considered to be serious financial loss.”

That finding was determinative because the corporate claim could not pass the statutory gateway. Without a compliant concerns notice, the corporation could not commence the defamation proceeding on its own behalf.

The Court also addressed the argument that later particulars could be treated as part of the concerns notice and rejected that approach on the reasoning that the statutory requirements are mandatory, and that a failure to provide required particulars can be an irremediable defect.

“The Act itself makes it clear that the requirements in section 12A(1) are conjunctive.”

That statement matters because it clarifies the Court’s method: this was not a “substantial compliance” case for an omitted category of information. The Court treated the missing information as fatal, not curable by persuasion alone.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made the following practical determinations:

1. The Second Plaintiff’s defamation claim against the First Defendant was struck out because the concerns notice did not inform the publisher of the financial loss the corporation considered to be serious financial loss caused, or likely to be caused, by the publications, as required for an excluded corporation.

2. In relation to the Instagram publication:

– The Court was satisfied there was sufficient similarity between the Instagram publication and other publications such that it could fall within the umbrella of the “matter” identified in the concerns notice.
– Two of the three imputations pleaded in relation to the Instagram publication were treated as substantially the same as imputations particularised in the concerns notice.
– One pleaded imputation, that the First Plaintiff was “mentally deficient insofar as he had a tiny brain”, was struck out because there was no similar imputation in the concerns notice.

1. To the extent paragraphs concerning the Instagram publication referenced the Second Plaintiff, those references were struck out consistently with the striking out of the corporate claim.

2. The security for costs application did not require determination given the disposition on the strike-out issues.

3. The Court indicated it would hear the parties on the form of orders and as to costs.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This judgment is a high-impact procedural authority in practical defamation litigation because it shows that the pre-action concerns notice is not mere etiquette. For an excluded corporation, the serious harm element is tied to serious financial loss, and the notice must do more than narrate reputational harm. The judgment demonstrates a disciplined insistence that statutory preconditions are enforced with real consequences, including the extinguishment of a corporate claim at the pleading stage.

It also illustrates a second, equally practical theme: the scheme is not necessarily a trap for plaintiffs who discover additional publications later, where the sting and imputations are the same or substantially the same. The Court accepted the possibility of evolution through amendment where the defamatory sting is aligned, while still enforcing a hard boundary for new or different imputations.

This duality is the jurisprudential value:
– strictness on missing categories of required information; and
– flexibility on platform and publication count where the “matter” and imputations remain aligned.

Judgment Points

1. The concerns notice regime is an access gate, not a courtesy letter. If you do not satisfy the gate, you do not get to litigate the merits.

2. For excluded corporations, serious harm is inseparable from serious financial loss. A notice that speaks only in reputational language risks being legally silent on the corporation’s claim.

3. The further particulars pathway is not a magic repair kit for an absent category of information. It addresses inadequate particularisation, not complete omission.

4. The notion of “matter” can operate across different publications and platforms if the sting is the same or substantially the same, protecting plaintiffs who later discover additional publications.

5. Even when the platform can be brought under the umbrella of the same “matter”, each imputation pleaded must still be compared to the imputations in the concerns notice. A genuinely new sting will be struck out.

Legal Basis

The Court’s reasoning turned on the interaction of the serious harm element and the concerns notice regime under the Defamation Act 2005.

Key provisions applied included:
– Section 10A: serious harm element of the cause of action, with section 10A(2) providing that harm to the reputation of an excluded corporation is not serious harm unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, the corporation serious financial loss.
– Section 12A: formal requirements of a concerns notice, including the requirement for an excluded corporation to inform the publisher of the financial loss the corporation considers to be serious financial loss caused or likely to be caused.
– Section 12B: prohibition on commencing a defamation proceeding without a concerns notice and the requirement that imputations to be relied on be particularised in the concerns notice, subject to reliance on substantially the same imputations.

The Court adopted an approach that treated the requirements in section 12A(1) as conjunctive and mandatory in operation.

Evidence Chain

The evidence chain in this interlocutory dispute was documentary and statutory rather than testimonial:

1. Identify the claimant’s status: The Second Plaintiff was accepted to be an excluded corporation.

2. Identify the statutory requirement triggered by that status: The concerns notice must include the financial loss considered to be serious financial loss.

3. Examine the concerns notice for that category of information: The notice contained reputational harm assertions, follower numbers, and references to online hostility, but did not articulate any financial loss.

4. Examine any further particulars: Even after particulars were requested, the particulars still did not set out particulars of serious financial loss, but asserted likelihood based on the First Plaintiff being the public face and the Second Plaintiff being referenced.

5. Apply the statutory consequences: Without a compliant concerns notice for the excluded corporation’s claim, the corporate pleading must be struck out.

6. For Instagram: compare the publication and imputations to those in the concerns notice; allow where substantially the same, strike out where not.

Judicial Original Quotation

The judgment’s ratio is best captured by the Court’s direct treatment of the missing corporate requirement and the approach to “same matter” across publications.

“The concerns notice does little more than assert that there had been an attack on the plaintiffs’ good reputation.”

This is determinative because it marks the difference between harm described in social terms and financial loss articulated as the corporation’s serious harm. It explains why follower numbers and reputational language did not satisfy the excluded corporation requirement.

“Section 12A(3) refers to a failure to particularise adequately.”

This statement matters because it frames the limits of the further particulars mechanism. It distinguishes inadequate detail from complete absence of the required type of information.

On the evolution of proceedings for later-discovered publications, the Court accepted that the scheme does not necessarily confine a plaintiff to publications known at the time, where later-discovered publications carry the same or substantially the same imputations.

“The legislative scheme does not operate to rigidly confine a plaintiff to the publications that were known when the notice was given.”

This is determinative for practice: it allows plaintiffs to deal with the reality of social media dissemination, where the full extent of publication may not be known at the time of notice.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The corporate claim failed because it did not treat the statutory corporate requirement as a concrete information task. The critical failure was not merely that the notice was brief. The failure was that the notice did not inform the publisher of any financial loss that the Second Plaintiff considered to be serious financial loss caused or likely to be caused.

In practical terms, the Second Plaintiff’s case faltered at the gateway because:
– reputational harm language was substituted for financial loss articulation;
– the notice did not connect alleged harm to revenue, contracts, tenders, cancellations, increased expenses, loss of goodwill expressed in financial terms, or any other identified financial consequence;
– the further particulars did not repair the omission, instead offering general assertions tied to identity and association rather than loss; and
– the statutory framework was applied as conjunctive and mandatory, leaving no discretionary room to treat omission as compliance.

On the Instagram imputation that was struck out, the failure was comparative: the pleaded sting about mental deficiency did not have a similar counterpart in the imputations already particularised. The Court therefore enforced the boundary that new stings cannot be smuggled in under the umbrella of the same matter.

Key to Victory

The successful party’s victory was built on disciplined statutory targeting and document-centric advocacy:
– isolating the precise statutory requirement for excluded corporations;
– forcing the Court to look at the notice itself, not at later narrative;
– framing the missing financial loss content as an omission of a mandatory element, not a mere lack of detail; and
– on Instagram, separating platform scope from imputation scope, conceding what could be “same matter” while attacking the new sting.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

1. Cooper v Nine Entertainment Co Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 726: Authority supporting the proposition that a concerns notice can cover multiple publications where later-discovered publications carry the same or substantially the same defamatory matter, and that proceedings can evolve through amendment and particularisation, provided the sting remains aligned.

2. Teh v Woodworth [2022] NSWDC 411: Authority cited for the proposition that concerns notice requirements are treated as mandatory in operation within the statutory scheme, emphasising compliance as a gateway step.

3. Piggott v Van Der Veen [2025] NSWDC 391: Authority cited for the proposition that absence of required particulars can operate as an irremediable defect, reinforcing strict compliance where required categories of information are missing.

Implications

1. Treat statutory gateways as real battlegrounds. If your case depends on a pre-action notice, you must build that document like it will be tested in court, because it can be.

2. Translate harm into the language the Act requires. If you are an excluded corporation, reputational harm must be carried into financial loss articulation. You are allowed to be specific. Specificity is not weakness; it is legal strength.

3. Own your narrative early. Social media disputes reward the loudest voice. Litigation rewards the clearest evidence chain. Your self-agency begins when you choose evidence over outrage.

4. Keep your sting consistent. If you later discover more posts, you can often bring them into the case if they repeat the same sting. But if you add a new sting, you may trigger a strike-out. Strategic focus protects your claim.

5. Build documents for copying, not for arguing. A concerns notice must not simply persuade; it must comply. Compliance is the foundation on which persuasion can later stand.

Q&A Session

Q1: Why did the corporation’s claim fail even though the notice described serious reputational harm?

Because the Act requires an excluded corporation to inform the publisher of the financial loss it considers to be serious financial loss caused or likely to be caused. Reputational harm alone did not satisfy that additional requirement, and the Court determined the notice did not articulate that category of information.

Q2: How could an Instagram post be relied on if it was not listed in the concerns notice?

Because the Court accepted that the statutory scheme does not necessarily confine plaintiffs to the exact publications identified at the time of notice where later-discovered publications convey the same or substantially the same defamatory matter, and where there is sufficient similarity to fall within the same “matter”.

Q3: Why was one Instagram imputation struck out while others survived?

Because imputations must be particularised in the concerns notice or be substantially the same as those particularised. The “clown deserving of contempt” type sting was sufficiently similar to a pleaded “buffoon deserving of ridicule” type sting, but the “mentally deficient” sting had no similar counterpart in the notice, so it was struck out.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Defamation pre-action compliance dispute involving social media publications; excluded corporation serious financial loss articulation; pleading strike-out concerning “same matter” across platforms

Judgment Nature Definition

Interlocutory judgment determining threshold compliance and strike-out issues

---

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Core Test: Has the Limitation Period expired?

1. Identify the applicable limitation law governing defamation proceedings in the relevant jurisdiction.
2. Determine the date of publication of each matter complained of.
3. Determine whether republications occurred and whether they are actionable as separate publications.
4. Compare each publication date to the limitation period, accounting for any statutory extensions that may be available in limited circumstances.
5. Treat limitation risk as relatively high where the defects in pre-action steps prevent recommencement and the limitation period has run or is close to running.

Practical guide:
– Keep a publication chronology from day one.
– Preserve screenshots, URLs, and metadata.
– Act quickly where a concerns notice is required, because delays can convert a fixable defect into a terminal one.

Core Test: Does the Court have Jurisdiction over the matter?

1. Identify the correct Court and list for the proceeding.
2. Confirm the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether the matter is properly characterised as defamation and whether the Court can grant the relief sought.
3. Confirm the correct parties and corporate status, including whether a corporate plaintiff is an excluded corporation and whether any corporate plaintiff is otherwise barred.

Practical guide:
– A corporation’s status is not a background detail. In defamation, corporate status can control whether the claim exists and whether serious harm requires serious financial loss.

Core Test: Has the duty of Discovery and Disclosure of evidence been satisfied?

1. Identify the documents and digital materials likely to be relevant: posts, comments, messages, page analytics, business records, invoices, cancellations, customer communications.
2. Preserve evidence in a forensically reliable form:

– screenshots with time and date capture;
– URL and platform identifiers;
– saved HTML or archived captures where possible;
– secure storage of original devices where necessary.
3. For financial loss:
– preserve tender records;
– email trails for lost jobs;
– customer complaints;
– cancellation messages;
– business financial statements showing the period before and after publication;
– evidence of increased marketing or remediation costs.

Practical guide:
– In serious financial loss disputes, the evidence often lives in ordinary business records. Your agency is expressed through record-keeping.

---

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Even where the statutory defamation pathway is blocked or narrowed by non-compliance, civil litigants may consider whether other causes of action or equitable doctrines provide alternative relief pathways. This must be assessed carefully against pleadings, evidence, and limitation risks.

Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel

In many defamation disputes, estoppel is usually not the primary pathway, because the wrong is reputational publication rather than reliance on a promise. However, if the dispute originated in a commercial dealing where one party made a clear representation and the other relied to their detriment, estoppel may become relevant in parallel commercial claims.

Self-check:
1. Was there a clear and unequivocal representation about payment, engagement, or business arrangement?
2. Was there detrimental reliance such as purchase of materials, turning away other work, or allocation of labour?
3. Would it be against conscience for the other party to resile?

Practical note:
– Estoppel tends to be determined on the precise words used and the reasonableness of reliance.

Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust

Again, this is not usually a defamation substitute, but may arise if money was paid or retained in circumstances said to be unjust.

Self-check:
1. Did one party receive a benefit at the other’s expense, such as a payment, labour, or materials?
2. Is retention of the benefit against conscience without restitution?
3. Is a proprietary remedy truly necessary, or is a personal monetary remedy adequate?

Practical note:
– Unjust enrichment claims tend to be evidence-heavy and require careful articulation of the unjust factor.

Procedural Fairness

This doctrine is primarily directed to administrative decision-making and is generally not the pathway for private defamation disputes. However, the lesson of procedural fairness is still practically useful: courts enforce gateway procedures. If the statute requires a step, you must take it precisely.

Ancillary Claims

Where defamation is procedurally constrained, parties sometimes consider:
– misleading or deceptive conduct claims under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law if the conduct is in trade or commerce, noting that social media accusations may not meet that threshold depending on context;
– injurious falsehood where false statements are published maliciously and cause actual damage, requiring careful proof of malice and special damage;
– harassment or related protective orders in appropriate circumstances, subject to jurisdictional and evidentiary thresholds.

Practical note:
– Alternative pathways tend to have their own thresholds and risks, and should be approached with disciplined legal advice rather than optimism.

---

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

1. Concerns notice threshold: A defamation proceeding cannot be commenced unless a concerns notice has been given and imputations to be relied upon were particularised in the notice.
2. Serious harm threshold: Serious harm is an element of the cause of action.
3. Excluded corporation threshold: Serious harm for an excluded corporation is not established unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss.
4. Limitation threshold: Defamation limitation periods can create a relatively high risk barrier where non-compliance prevents recommencement.

Exceptional Channels

1. Multiple publications discovered later: Where later-discovered publications convey the same or substantially the same defamatory matter, plaintiffs may be able to rely upon them without having identified every publication in the initial notice, provided the sting remains aligned.
2. Evolution through amendment: Pleadings may evolve, but new stings may trigger strike-out risk if not substantially the same as those particularised.
3. Further particulars mechanism: A publisher can request further particulars where information is inadequately particularised, but reliance on this pathway tends to be risky where an entire category of required information is missing.

Suggestion:
Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you fear technical steps. Instead, convert fear into structure:
– build a compliance checklist;
– draft the concerns notice as if it will be Exhibit A in an interlocutory hearing;
– quantify loss where required; and
– preserve a clean evidence chain.

---

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this authority in legal submissions involving:
– strict compliance with concerns notice requirements, especially for excluded corporations;
– the distinction between reputational harm and serious financial loss articulation;
– strike-out applications based on non-compliance with section 12A and section 12B; and
– the treatment of later-discovered publications as part of the same “matter” where imputations are substantially the same.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:
– Where your matter involves an excluded corporation and the publisher argues that financial loss was not adequately conveyed, this authority supports the proposition that omission of serious financial loss particulars can be fatal at the threshold stage.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party relies on this authority to argue strict confinement to publications listed in the notice, you may distinguish by demonstrating that your later-discovered publications do not carry the same sting, or that your notice did in fact articulate serious financial loss with concrete particulars.

Anonymisation Rule

When explaining the case to clients or non-parties, avoid using party names. Use procedural titles such as First Plaintiff, Second Plaintiff, First Defendant, and Second Defendant, and identify the case by court, year, and medium neutral citation.

---

Conclusion

This judgment teaches a disciplined lesson: statutory gateways are real, and the Court will enforce them. If you want the law to protect your reputation or your business, you must first protect your own case through precise compliance, careful evidence preservation, and a focused articulation of the sting you are truly litigating.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria ([2025] VSC 671), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.