Racing NSW chief executive Peter V’landys is suing The Thoroughbred Report and journalist Kit Gow over an article published on 18 November 2025 asking whether it was time for CEO term limits in NSW racing.
The case, now well into the discovery phase, is a live demonstration of how defamation law works in 2026. For anyone thinking about suing for defamation, or defending a defamation claim, this case teaches essential lessons about what you must prove, what defences apply, and why the financial and procedural costs are so significant.
What Is The Peter V’landys Case About?
On 18 November 2025, The Thoroughbred Report published an article titled ‘After twenty years at the helm, is it time racing imposed CEO term limits?’ Peter V’landys, the long-serving CEO of Racing NSW, filed a defamation claim in the NSW Supreme Court’s Common Law Division.
According to the statement of claim, V’landys alleges multiple defamatory imputations, specific meanings that a reasonable reader would understand from the article, that are said to damage his reputation.
A preliminary hearing was scheduled for 27 March 2026, and the case is understood to take 12 to 18 months to progress to trial. The case has now entered the discovery phase, the period where each party is compelled to produce documents relevant to the dispute, including internal emails, communications, editorial notes, and records. Discovery is often where defamation cases become most legally and financially intense, as both sides seek to build their evidentiary picture before trial.
Defamation litigation at this scale in the NSW Supreme Court is expensive for all parties involved. The reality is that costs can run to very significant sums, particularly for a publication defending against a Supreme Court claim. This reality makes early, specialist legal advice, and a strategic approach to settlement negotiations, critically important.
The ‘Serious Harm’ Test: A Real Threshold, Not a Formality
Under the reforms introduced to NSW defamation law via section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), a plaintiff cannot simply show that a publication was defamatory. They must also establish that it caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.
For individuals, ‘serious harm’ means serious reputational damage that is actual, provable, and demonstrable, not merely the inherent injuriousness of the words themselves. Trivial, transient, or limited reputational damage does not satisfy the test.
In V’landys’ case, his legal team must demonstrate two distinct things:
(1) that a reasonable reader would have understood the article to carry the defamatory meanings alleged, and
(2) that those meanings caused, or were likely to cause, serious reputational harm to him personally. Simply showing that the article was unflattering, or that it was deeply embarrassing, is not enough.
This is a real threshold, not a procedural formality. It filters out claims where the damage to reputation, while perhaps real, does not reach the level the law requires. Understanding whether you can clear this threshold is the first critical question to ask before commencing defamation proceedings.
The Public Interest Defence Peter V’landys Case
The defendants, The Thoroughbred Report and Kit Gow, are relying on the public interest defence introduced to NSW defamation law under section 29A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). This defence provides a complete answer to a defamation claim where:
(1) the publication concerned an issue of public interest, and
(2) the publisher reasonably believed that publishing the material was in the public interest.
Racing NSW is a statutory authority that controls licensing, funding, prizemoney distribution, and industry policy. The article was published while the NSW Government’s review of the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 was actively underway. In this case, the defendants argue that the question of how Racing NSW’s power is governed, and by whom, and for how long, is a matter of public interest that the industry has yet to openly debate.
The public interest defence was specifically designed to ensure that defamation law does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression, particularly on the publication and discussion of matters of public interest and importance. However, the defence does not protect publications that go beyond what was reasonably necessary, that contain inaccuracies the publisher knew about, or that were motivated by malice rather than a genuine belief in the public interest.
Whether The Thoroughbred Report and Kit Gow can establish that their article satisfied both limbs of the section 29A defence is the central question the case will ultimately determine. This is not a straightforward exercise:
The first case to test the public interest defence at trial, ff,mgccfultimately found that the ABC’s public interest defence failed, despite the fact that the publishers believed the material was in the public interest. The court found that the ABC journalists did not sufficiently investigate and corroborate the allegations and failed to distinguish between suspicions, allegations, and proven facts.
What Does ‘Discovery’ Mean, And Why Does It Matter?
Discovery is the stage of civil litigation where each party is required to disclose and produce documents relevant to the issues in dispute. In a defamation case involving a journalist, this typically means producing editorial communications, notes, sources, editorial discussions, drafts, and any internal communications about the article before and after publication.
For the plaintiff (V’landys), discovery can reveal: whether the defendants had internal doubts about the accuracy of their claims; whether they gave him an adequate opportunity to respond before publication; and whether their stated belief in the public interest was genuine at the time.
For the defendants, discovery of V’landys’ communications and records can reveal the actual extent of reputational damage, or its absence. Both sides use discovery to build or undermine credibility.
Discovery is also where subpoenas, formal court orders requiring third parties to produce documents, become a powerful tool. Both sides may subpoena communications held by media platforms, other journalists, racing industry bodies, and other relevant third parties.
What This Case Tells Every Potential Defamation Plaintiff or Defendant
If You’re Thinking of Suing
The V’landys case illustrates a hard truth: defamation proceedings are expensive, procedurally complex, and far from guaranteed to succeed. You must clear the serious harm threshold. The defendant may have a solid public interest defence. Discovery will expose communications from both sides. The costs, often running to hundreds of thousands of dollars per side, are a substantial reality.
None of this means you shouldn’t sue if you have genuinely been defamed. It means you need specialist legal advice at the outset to assess your claim honestly, including the strength of any defence the other side might run, and whether the cost of proceeding is justified by the likely recovery.
A cautionary precedent:
In 2021, V’landys brought a defamation action against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation over an episode of 7.30 titled ‘The Final Race,’ which reported on racehorse slaughter. V’landys claimed the program made four defamatory imputations including that he callously permitted the wholesale slaughter of thoroughbred horses. The Federal Court found that none of the four imputations were conveyed by the program, and V’landys was unsuccessful in his claim. On appeal, Justice Steven Rares acknowledged that the 7.30 report had treated V’landys ‘shabbily,’ but found that it did not defame him.
That history illustrates that even high-profile, well-resourced plaintiffs do not always prevail in defamation cases, particularly where a public interest defence is available to the defendant.
If You’ve Been Served with a Concerns Notice or Claim
The 2021 NSW defamation reforms introduced a mandatory pre-litigation process involving a concerns notice. A defendant has a statutory period to consider making an offer of amends before court proceedings can be formally commenced. Early, specialist legal advice at the concerns notice stage can sometimes prevent the case from ever reaching the expensive litigation phase through negotiated settlement.
Why Peter V’landys Case Matters: Defamation Law in 2026
The V’landys case is not an outlier. It demonstrates that defamation law has shifted fundamentally over the past five years. The introduction of the serious harm threshold has been designed to reduce the number of costly minor claims and filter out cases where reputational damage, while real, does not reach the threshold the law requires. Now, the public interest defence actively protects legitimate journalism on matters of public concern from being silenced by threat of defamation litigation.
For plaintiffs, this means the threshold to sue is higher. For defendants, particularly journalists and publishers, there is now a genuine defence available where the publication concerns a matter of public interest and the publisher’s belief in that interest is reasonable.
The cost and complexity of modern defamation litigation means that disputes are increasingly resolved before trial through early legal intervention, settlement negotiations, and strategic use of the concerns notice process.
To learn more about defamation, read our factsheets here.
Seeking Specialist Defamation Advice?
If you believe you have been defamed, have received a concerns notice, or have been served with a defamation claim, specialist legal advice at the outset is essential. The V’landys v The Thoroughbred Report case is ongoing, and the courts’ ultimate findings will provide further guidance on how NSW defamation law applies to questions of public interest and journalistic freedom.
At O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors, our defamation team represents both plaintiffs and defendants. We give honest assessments of your claim’s strength and the realistic costs and benefits of proceeding. Whether you are facing a defamation claim or believe you have been defamed, we provide a free initial consultation.
Contact Details
Phone: 02 9261 4281
Email:
