## Facts

- A magazine publisher released one print and seven online articles about an actor, alleging she lied about her age, background, and personal history to advance her career.
- A jury found the publications defamatory, conveying that she was “a serial liar” who had fabricated almost every aspect of her life, and rejected the publisher’s defences (including substantial truth and triviality).
- The trial judge awarded $650,000 in general damages (including aggravated damages) and $3,917,472 in special damages for alleged lost film opportunities, totalling $4,567,472.
- The trial judge treated aggravated damages as permitting general damages above the statutory cap on non-economic loss in s 35(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic).
- The publisher appealed only the quantum of damages; liability was not contested.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to $3,917,472 in special damages for economic loss based on alleged lost film opportunities.
2. Whether s 35(1) authorises general damages exceeding the statutory cap where aggravated damages are warranted, and whether the $650,000 general-damages figure was excessive.
3. Whether media organisations should be granted leave to intervene on the interpretation of s 35(1).

## Decision

- The appeal was allowed in part.
- The special-damages award for economic loss ($3,917,472) was set aside in full because the plaintiff did not establish the claimed loss with sufficiently specific, cogent evidence.
- The Court confirmed that s 35(1) permits an award for non-economic loss above the statutory cap where aggravated damages are warranted.
- The Court reduced general damages (including aggravated damages) from $650,000 to $600,000.
- Leave for media organisations to intervene was refused.
- Total damages were reduced from $4,567,472 to $600,000.

## Legal Principles

- Large special-damages awards for economic loss in defamation require cogent, particularised proof linking the defamatory publications to identifiable lost opportunities; general claims about career harm or hypothetical “lost trajectory” are insufficient.
- Under s 35(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), the statutory cap on damages for non-economic loss may be exceeded where aggravated damages are warranted.
- Aggravation may be supported by publisher conduct such as inadequate investigation, publication with knowledge of falsity or recklessness, repetition with foresight of republication, and a coordinated campaign to injure reputation for commercial gain.
- Even where the cap can be exceeded, appellate review may reduce damages that go beyond what is necessary to vindicate reputation and compensate distress.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld the defamation verdict but sharply reduced damages, holding that multi-million-dollar economic-loss claims must be proven with specific evidence and confirming that general damages may exceed the statutory cap when aggravated damages are warranted, subject to proportionality in the final amount awarded.


Bauer Media Pty Ltd v. Wilson (No. 2), [2018] VSCA 154 (Sup. Ct. Vict. Ct. App. 2018)