Comparative Privacy and Defamation
Show Less

Comparative Privacy and Defamation

Edited by András Koltay and Paul Wragg

Providing comparative analysis that examines both Western and non-Western legal systems, this wide-ranging Handbook expands and enriches the existing privacy and defamation law literature and addresses the fundamental issues facing today’s scholars and practitioners. Comparative Privacy and Defamation provides insightful commentary on issues of theory and doctrine, including the challenges of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the impact of new technologies on the law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 16: A comparative analysis of the treatment of corporate reputation in Australia and the UK

Peter Coe


In Australia, pursuant to Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005, companies trading for profit with ten or more employees are prohibited from bringing an action in defamation. In June 2018, the New South Wales government published a Statutory Review of the Act. Although it is of the view that the balance struck by Section 9 continues to be appropriate, it recognised the importance of corporate reputation, and has recommended a further discrete review of the provision. One of the persuading factors for making this recommendation is that Australia’s approach does not correspond with the treatment of corporate reputation in other similar jurisdictions, including the UK. This is ironic, as prior to the enactment of the Defamation Act 2013, the UK very nearly followed Australia by prohibiting companies from bringing a claim in defamation. Rather than following the Australian example, the day before the 2013 Act received Royal Assent, Parliament introduced a qualification for the Section 1(1) serious harm requirement for bodies trading for profit; to meet the serious harm threshold, under Section 1(2), they need to demonstrate actual or likely serious financial loss. Thus, this paper critically analyses the efficacy of the Section 9 prohibition, and the Section 1(2) serious financial loss requirement. Ultimately, it argues that neither are fit for purpose, and that a cultural shift is needed to better protect companies of all sizes.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.