03 9070 9810

Privacy Claim or Defamation Claim: Which Applies to You?

Two distinct causes of action. Different elements, different defences. The right choice depends on what was done and what you want to achieve.

Book a Confidential Assessment ($770)

Max file size: 20MB

Two Separate Laws. One May Succeed Where the Other Fails.

Since 10 June 2025, Australians have had two distinct legal avenues when private information is disclosed without consent: the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), and the long-established law of defamation under the uniform Defamation Acts. Both provide damages. Both are heard in the same courts. But they are built on fundamentally different foundations, and the differences are not academic. They determine whether you have a viable claim at all.

The most consequential difference is this: truth defeats a defamation claim but is entirely irrelevant to a privacy claim. If your former employer disclosed your private medical condition to colleagues, and the information was accurate, you have no defamation claim. You may, however, have a strong claim under the statutory tort for misuse of personal information. If you are trying to decide between privacy or defamation, or you are unsure which claim fits your situation, this page sets out the key distinctions. Sutton Laurence King Lawyers practises in both areas and can assess your position across both causes of action in a single confidential initial assessment.

Not sure which claim applies? Time limits may be running.

The privacy tort has a limitation period as short as 12 months from awareness. Defamation is one year from publication. Do not delay.

Three Critical Differences Between Privacy and Defamation

Understanding these distinctions is essential to choosing the right cause of action, or recognising that both may apply.

Legal documents representing truth as a defence in defamation cases

Truth Is Not a Defence to the Privacy Tort

<p>This is the single most important distinction between the two claims. In defamation, a defendant who proves the published material was substantially true has a complete defence. The claim fails regardless of the harm caused.</p><p>Under the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, truth is irrelevant. The question is whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information and whether the defendant's conduct was serious, intentional or reckless. If your private health records, financial information, or intimate images were disclosed without your consent, the accuracy of the material does not help the defendant. This fills a gap that Australian plaintiffs have faced for decades: true but deeply private information disclosed maliciously was, until now, largely unprotected.</p><p>Overseas courts recognised this distinction long before Australia. In the UK decision of <em>Campbell v MGN Ltd</em> [2004] UKHL 22, the House of Lords held that the publication of true information about the claimant's drug treatment was actionable as a misuse of private information. Australian courts are likely to consider this line of authority when interpreting the new tort.</p>

Comparison of private intrusion versus public publication in legal contexts

Privacy Covers Intrusion, Not Just Publication

<p>Defamation is, by definition, a publication tort. Someone must communicate defamatory material to at least one person other than the plaintiff. If no one else sees or hears the material, there is no defamation claim.</p><p>The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy has two distinct pathways. The first, <strong>misuse of personal information</strong>, involves the collection, use, or disclosure of private information and may overlap with defamation where the information is also published. The second, <strong>intrusion upon seclusion</strong>, requires no publication at all. It covers surveillance, tracking, eavesdropping, physical intrusion into private spaces, and accessing private accounts or correspondence. A neighbour who points a CCTV camera at your bedroom window has not published anything, but may be liable under the privacy tort. An ex-partner who installs tracking software on your phone has not communicated your location to anyone else, but may have committed a serious intrusion upon your seclusion.</p><p>This means the privacy tort reaches conduct that defamation law simply cannot touch. If your complaint is about being watched, tracked, or monitored rather than about something being said about you, the privacy tort is the relevant claim.</p>

Legal scales representing different proof requirements for privacy and defamation claims

Different Proof Requirements and Damages Structures

<p>Defamation requires the plaintiff to establish that the published material carried a defamatory meaning and that it was communicated to at least one other person. Serious harm to reputation must be established (in jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 amendments). The plaintiff does not need to prove financial loss for general (non-economic) damages, but must prove special damages separately.</p><p>The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy is actionable without proof of damage. You do not need to show financial loss, reputational harm, or even emotional distress, though these may increase any damages award. The court assesses seriousness by reference to factors including the nature of the privacy interest, the defendant's state of mind, and the degree of the invasion. Non-economic loss damages are capped at approximately $478,550 (indexed). Exemplary damages are available in exceptional cases, on top of the cap. Defamation damages are capped at a comparable figure, but exemplary (aggravated) damages in defamation operate somewhat differently.</p><p>In both causes of action, the court may also grant injunctive relief to restrain further invasions or further publication. The threshold for obtaining an <a href="/urgent-privacy-injunctions">urgent privacy injunction</a> differs from the threshold in defamation, where the rule in <em>Bonnard v Perryman</em> traditionally made pre-trial injunctions difficult to obtain.</p>

When Both Claims Apply: Running Privacy and Defamation Together

The Overlap

Where private information has been published, and the information is both untrue (or carries a defamatory imputation) and private, both causes of action may be available. This is not uncommon. Consider a former business partner who circulates false allegations about your mental health to industry contacts. The allegations are defamatory (they damage your professional reputation) and they involve misuse of private health information. A plaintiff in that position is not required to choose one claim over the other. Both may be pleaded, subject to the rule against double recovery (you cannot recover damages twice for the same loss).

Strategic Considerations

The choice between privacy, defamation, or both is not always straightforward. Several factors bear on the decision.

Is the information true? If yes, a defamation claim is unlikely to succeed. The privacy tort becomes the primary avenue. This is the scenario where the new tort is most valuable: true but deeply private information disclosed without consent.

Has the information been published to third parties? If no, defamation is unavailable. If the complaint involves surveillance, tracking, account access, or other intrusive conduct that has not resulted in publication, only the privacy tort applies. See our pages on surveillance and recording claims and phone tracking.

What remedy are you seeking? If the primary objective is to stop ongoing publication, an urgent privacy injunction may be easier to obtain than a defamation injunction, because the rule in Bonnard v Perryman (which disfavours prior restraint in defamation) does not apply in the same way to privacy claims. The statutory tort expressly requires the court to have regard to the public interest in publication, but it does not impose the near-absolute bar that exists in defamation.

Who is the defendant? Defamation claims can be brought against any person, including corporations and media organisations. The privacy tort can also be brought against any person, corporation, or government body, but certain defendants (journalists, law enforcement bodies, intelligence agencies, minors) may be exempt under Part 3 of Schedule 2. If the defendant is a media organisation and a journalist exemption may apply, defamation may be the more reliable claim. If the defendant is exempt from the journalist exemption (because they are a blogger, social media user, or influencer not subject to a code of practice), the privacy tort remains available.

What are the limitation periods? Defamation has a one-year limitation period from publication, extendable to three years. The privacy tort has a one-year limitation period from the date the plaintiff became aware (or ought to have become aware) of the invasion, or three years from the date of the invasion, whichever is earlier. A maximum extension to six years is available. These are strict deadlines. If you are approaching either limit, you should seek advice immediately. See privacy tort time limits for further detail.

The Advantage of a Firm That Practises in Both Areas

Most privacy law firms in Australia do not also practise in defamation. Most defamation firms have not yet developed a practice under the new statutory tort. Sutton Laurence King Lawyers practises in both. This means your position can be assessed across both causes of action from the outset, and a strategy developed that accounts for the strengths and limitations of each. Where the facts support parallel claims, both can be pursued efficiently by a single legal team. Where one claim is clearly stronger, that assessment is made honestly rather than being constrained by the firm's practice areas.

For more information about our defamation practice, visit defamationlawyer.au.

The clock is ticking. You may have as little as 12 months to act.

A fixed-fee confidential initial assessment ($770) covers both privacy and defamation. One consultation, both causes of action assessed.

Privacy Tort vs Defamation: Quick Reference

Key distinctions between the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy (Schedule 2) and defamation under the uniform Defamation Acts.

Truth Is No Defence (Privacy)

The statutory tort does not require the information to be false. True information disclosed without consent is actionable. In defamation, truth (substantial truth) is a complete defence.

No Publication Required (Privacy)

Intrusion upon seclusion (surveillance, tracking, account access) does not require publication to any third party. Defamation always requires communication to at least one other person.

No Proof of Damage Required (Privacy)

The statutory tort is actionable per se. You do not need to prove financial loss, reputational harm, or emotional distress. Defamation requires proof of serious harm to reputation.

Injunctions May Be Easier to Obtain (Privacy)

The Bonnard v Perryman principle, which strongly disfavours pre-trial injunctions in defamation, does not apply in the same way to privacy claims. Urgent injunctive relief may be more readily available.

Journalist Exemption Differs

In defamation, qualified privilege and honest opinion protect responsible journalism. Under the privacy tort, a narrow journalist exemption applies only to professionals subject to a code of practice. Social media users and bloggers are not exempt.

Both Claims Can Run in Parallel

Where facts support it, privacy and defamation claims can be brought together. Damages are not duplicated, but running both strengthens negotiating position and covers gaps in either cause of action.

Frequently Asked Questions: Privacy vs Defamation

Yes. Where the same conduct gives rise to both causes of action (for example, publication of private information that is also defamatory), both claims may be pleaded and pursued. The court will not award damages twice for the same loss, but running both claims addresses different aspects of the harm and strengthens your position. A confidential initial assessment can determine whether your facts support one or both claims.

Almost certainly not. Truth (or substantial truth) is a complete defence to a defamation claim. If the information published about you was accurate, defamation law provides no remedy regardless of how damaging or humiliating the disclosure was. The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, however, does not require the information to be false. If the information was private, and the disclosure was intentional or reckless and serious, you may have a strong privacy claim. This is one of the most significant gaps the new tort fills.

Defamation requires publication to a third party and cannot help you. The statutory tort covers intrusion upon seclusion, which includes surveillance, tracking, eavesdropping, accessing private accounts, and physical intrusion into private spaces. No publication is required. See our pages on surveillance and recording claims, neighbour camera surveillance, and phone tracking.

The caps are comparable. Non-economic loss under the statutory tort is capped at approximately $478,550 (indexed). Defamation damages are capped at a similar figure under the uniform Defamation Acts. Both causes of action allow exemplary or aggravated damages in appropriate cases, on top of the cap. The privacy tort also allows the court to order an account of profits, delivery up, and destruction of material, which are not available in defamation. See compensation and damages for more detail.

Yes. Defamation has a one-year limitation period from publication, extendable to three years in limited circumstances. The privacy tort has a one-year limitation period from the date you became aware (or ought to have become aware) of the invasion, or three years from the date the invasion occurred, whichever is earlier. A maximum extension to six years is available. Both are strict. If either deadline is approaching, seek advice without delay. See privacy tort time limits.

Yes. Sutton Laurence King Lawyers has an established defamation practice (see defamationlawyer.au) and now acts in claims under the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy. The two areas of law share significant common ground, including overlapping defences, similar damages frameworks, and publication concepts. Acting in both areas means your position is assessed comprehensively from the outset.

Yes. If you face both a privacy claim and a defamation claim arising from the same conduct, both can be defended within the same proceedings. The defences differ: truth is a complete defence to defamation but irrelevant to the privacy tort. For privacy, you may rely on defences such as lawful authority, consent, necessity, or public interest. You may also apply for a pre-trial determination that a Part 3 exemption applies, which could resolve the privacy claim before trial. See our defendant representation page for more information.

An OAIC complaint and a court claim under the statutory tort are separate proceedings. The OAIC handles complaints about breaches of the Australian Privacy Principles by APP entities (generally organisations with annual turnover above $3 million). The statutory tort is a cause of action in a court, brought against any person, corporation, or government body. You are not required to complain to the OAIC before commencing a court claim, and vice versa. See OAIC complaint vs court proceedings for a detailed comparison.

Unsure Whether You Have a Privacy Claim, a Defamation Claim, or Both?

A fixed-fee confidential initial assessment ($770) will identify your strongest avenue and the steps required. Both causes of action assessed. One consultation.

Call