Defamation cases before the courts have dropped rapidly over the last few years and it is worth looking at some of the reasons why as social media users still get threatened with defamation lawsuits on a regular basis.

But firstly, let’s recap what I published in 2022 on the topic.

I published an article in September 2022 titled “Australia’s new defamation laws should stop criminals like Lachlan Murdoch and Kerry Stokes from abusing the law to silence journalists” and I have been proven right although that is what the new laws were introduced to do at least in part.

The article starts off:

Australia’s newly amended defamation laws should stop crooks like Lachlan Murdoch and Kerry Stokes from abusing the legal system to silence journalists. The new laws should also protect many social media users from frivolous defamation claims from the likes of federal MP Peter Dutton.

Kerry Stokes is notorious for using defamation law to silence journalists with the current Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case a prime example of which Stokes is financing, Lachlan Murdoch is currently trying to silence the Crikey website and Peter Dutton failed in his defamation case against Shane Bazzi over one message on Twitter.

The key elements that should stop them are a requirement for defamation applicants to prove “as a fact” that serious harm has been caused, or likely to be caused, by the alleged defamation and also the requirement to send a Concerns Notice at least 28 days before they institute legal proceedings.

If those requirements had been in place in 2014 it is almost certain that Kerry Stokes would not have instituted the 3 defamation lawsuits against me which I will discuss further in a minute. I will also discuss some high-profile cases and the impact the new laws would have had on them. (Click here to read the full article)

I also published the below video in September 2022 on the new defamation laws:

The SMH’s legal affairs reporter Michaela Whitbourn has published 2 articles, one last year (2024), and one this year (2025), that cover the changing landscape of defamation cases in Australia but she has missed out some key elements that show the full picture. 

I have 9 years of experience (2014 to 2022) in defamation law being on the receiving end of 4 SLAPP lawsuits by Kerry Stokes and his associated companies which puts me in position to cover some points that Michaela Whitbourn missed.

Drop in defamation cases:

The SMH reported in May 2025:

The number of defamation cases filed in Australia has declined sharply since a boom five years ago, in a sign that costly court losses and recent law reforms may be deterring prospective plaintiffs.

In 2014, 58 defamation cases were filed in the NSW Supreme Court, a tally that fell to 14 in 2020 and just six last year. This reflects the shift in cases to the Federal Court. (Click here to read more)

The bottom line is, defamation cases have almost disappeared in the NSW Supreme Court from a 58 in 2014 to 6 in 2024.

While the shift to the Federal Court can account for some cases it is unlikely more than 15 to 20 of the 30 cases filed nationally last year in the federal court were NSW cases which means NSW defamation cases have more than halved since 2014. 

Recent law changes

There are 2 key changes to defamation laws in recent years that have made a huge difference.

The “serious harm” and “concerns notice” requirements have stopped many frivolous and vexatious defamation claims being filed.

The SMH reported in May 2025:

Serious harm

Under the serious harm requirement, a plaintiff must show an allegedly defamatory publication “has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm” to their reputation.

This was designed to discourage lower-level lawsuits, sometimes referred to as “backyard” claims.

“Harm to reputation was previously presumed, which made it very easy for virtually anyone to sue for defamation,” Rolph said. Adding this new obstacle “may deter some claimants”.

A new procedural hurdle

Rolph said a new requirement that a person suing for defamation issue a concerns notice before filing proceedings may also “act as a barrier”.

A concerns notice sets out the allegedly defamatory statements at the heart of the claim. In a trial, a plaintiff “can’t rely on a statement they haven’t put in their concerns notice”.

“The effect of this is to increase the costs of pre-trial steps because specialist practitioners would need to be engaged to draft concerns notices.” (Click here to read more)

How the rich are now abusing defamation laws

In recent times, instead of instituting defamation cases, law firms are just writing directly to social media sites and having articles and videos blocked by saying they are defamatory and breach Australian law. 

One example is Lawyer Rebekah Giles who had an article I wrote about her blocked by Google even though she never sued me or even wrote to me.

I detailed exactly what happened in an article published in April 2021 titled “Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, has corruptly used the law and tech company Google to hide her past. Will she do the same for Porter?”. (Click here to read the article)

Kerry Stokes v The Rest of World

Kerry Stokes is a legend in legal circles when it comes to spending $millions on frivolous and vexatious court cases to intimidate others and many of them were defamation cases.

For example Stokes funded the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case, used Channel 7 to support Craig McLachlan’s defamation case, Stokes’ Channel 7 was involved in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation matter and Stokes’ 4 SLAPP lawsuits against me.

But Stokes most legendary case was in the infamous C7 matter. The ABC reported in 2007:

A judge has described Kerry Stokes’s C7 court action against more than 20 parties as a scandalous waste of time and money, dismissing his case in a crushing blow to the Seven media proprietor.

The C7 case has become known in legal and media circles as “Kerry Stokes against the rest of the world”.

Justice Sackville questioned the motives and credibility of Seven’s key witnesses, including Mr Stokes, saying there was “more than a hint of hypocrisy” in many of the organisation’s contentions.

He was scathing about the duration of the case, its complexity and estimated cost of around $200 million.

“It is difficult to understand how the cost incurred by the parties can be said to be proportionate to what is truly at stake, measured in financial terms,” he said.

“In my view, the expenditure of $200 million and counting on a single piece of litigation is not only extraordinarily wasteful but borders on the scandalous.” (Click here to read more)

Kerry Stokes never learnt from the C7 case in 2007 and went on the file many more frivolous and vexatious cases including against me. 

Kerry Stokes has over many years used a war of law to silence staff and whistleblowers and has definitely played a role, by embarrassing the courts and politicians, in forcing defamation law changes which are now having a positive impact in reducing the number of defamation claims. 

The defamation law changes could go further but have helped protect people’s right to free speech and political communication.

Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.

Thank you for your support.

For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.

For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here

Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.