On 22 September 2026, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed Robert McVicker’s defamation appeal against the ABC. His company had bought online travel agency Bestjet weeks before it went into administration. That is because a news story can name you, and sit beside the word “collapse”, without carrying the defamatory meaning you say it does.
The article opened with Bestjet’s founder attributing the collapse to the change of ownership. However, the Court found it did not carry the specific meaning Mr McVicker pleaded, and that ended the claim.
The gap between “this story hurt me” and “this story means what I say it means” is where defamation claims are won or lost.
What the case was about
The ABC published the article on 5 January 2019. Mr McVicker, a director of the company that had bought Bestjet, sued in the District Court of Queensland. He pleaded that the article meant he was to blame for the collapse, and for customers losing money, because of his “poor and inefficient management”.
The trial judge found for the ABC in November 2025. In McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] QCA 179, Justice Brown (with Justices Bradley and Doyle agreeing) granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal.
| What was argued | What the Court found | |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | The collapse was due to his poor and inefficient management | A reader might suspect mismanagement, but not that it was due to his poor and inefficient management |
| Repeating someone else’s claims | Attributing them to the founder was no excuse | True, but context decides, and the rest of the article questioned her account |
| Offer to make amends | The ABC’s offer was inadequate | The offer was reasonable, so the ABC would have had a defence anyway |
How courts decide what an article actually means
You don’t sue over the words themselves. In fact, you sue over the imputations: the defamatory meanings you say the words carry. The court asks whether the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the publication to carry that meaning, or one substantially the same.
The ordinary reasonable reader is not a lawyer, right? Well, the High Court says they read casually and between the lines, and that meaning is often “a matter of first impression”. Then, they are taken to read the whole article.
That last point decided McVicker. The founder’s statements were prominent and unqualified, but the later, longer part of the article reported the new owner’s short time as director and raised questions about the founder’s own account. Read as a whole, the Court said, why Bestjet collapsed and who was responsible were left open.
A story that raises a question is not the same as a story that answers it against you.
Why the wording of your imputations matters
Mr McVicker’s imputations were specific: he was to blame, because of his poor and inefficient management. The Court found the article was silent about his role beyond his being a director.
That is the risk in pleading.
Put the meaning too high or too specifically and you still have to prove the article conveyed it. In NSW, you can’t start proceedings at all unless the imputations you rely on were particularised in a concerns notice first (s 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)).
The offer that would have ended it anyway
Even if the article had been defamatory, the Court said the ABC would still have had a defence, because Mr McVicker had turned down a reasonable offer to make amends: an updated article, an editor’s note with an apology, and $5,000 towards his legal costs. In this case, the trial judge said that, had the claim succeeded, he would have been inclined to award $7,500.
The case was decided under the Queensland Act as it stood before the July 2021 reforms, because the publications sued on came before that date, so the serious harm requirement didn’t apply. In NSW, the law now in force differs in two ways that matter:
- Serious harm: you must show the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation (s 10A).
- Offer to make amends: a publisher generally has 28 days after your concerns notice to make one (s 14). Turning down a reasonable offer can still give them a defence (s 18).
NSW and Queensland have uniform defamation laws with these provisions in substantially the same terms. A Queensland decision doesn’t bind NSW courts, but McVicker applies High Court and NSW Court of Appeal principles.
Been defamed by a news story?
If a story about you feels unfair, the question isn’t whether it hurt. Instead, it’s what an ordinary reader would take it to mean, read start to finish.
Get advice before you send a concerns notice. It limits the imputations you can later sue on, and it starts the 28 days in which the publisher can make an offer that could end your claim. Time matters too: in NSW, you generally have one year from publication to sue (Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 14B).
Our fact sheets cover what defamation is, the defences and damages. The Peter V’landys case is another recent lesson.
How O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors Can Help
Our media and publication defamation team, led by Special Counsel Stewart O’Connell, acts for people who believe a story or post has damaged their reputation, and for publishers facing a concerns notice. We can assess what a publication actually conveys, draft or answer concerns notices, and advise on offers to make amends.
If you’re weighing up a claim or have received a concerns notice, talk to us before the deadlines run against you.
Request initial advice (no-obligation) via the form below or call us on (02) 9261 4281.
This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek independent legal advice relevant to your specific circumstances.
Peter O'Brien is the Principal Solicitor of O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors and Australia's leading expert in intentional torts litigation, with over 25 years of experience securing landmark victories in malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment cases. Author of Intentional Tort Litigation in Australia and recipient of the Law Council of Australia President's Medal, Peter has achieved record-breaking compensation for clients and is widely recognised for his unwavering commitment to access to justice.
