NSW Continuous and organised defamation

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now


Active Member
28 June 2020
Hi everyone,

i have been continuously defamed by a group of people in an organisation to destroy my reputation and stop me from promotion and also to force me to leave the organisation.

It was first came to my attention December 2019 when I didn’t take action as I was told that it will be resolved internally through mediation by someone who

following sever psychological torture by the organised misconducts and defamation, same defamatory comments have been made by another member of that group only a few days ago.

given that this defamation is organised and targeted, and given that it’s more than a year after the first incident but only a few days after the last one, am I still eligible to sue the group, including the initiator that started this more than a year ago?

thanks a lot for your helps .


LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
For the recent incident yes, for the others not without permission of the court.


Well-Known Member
11 November 2019
When the UDA was enacted, all jurisdictions amended their limitation statutes to provide that a cause of action was not maintainable if brought after the end of the limitation period (one year) from the date of publication of the matter complained of: Limitation Act 1969 s 14B. An extension of up to three years may be granted, but the test (that the plaintiff must demonstrate that it was not reasonable to have commenced an action within the one year period from date of publication) has been called a “difficult hurdle”: Rayney v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2010] WASC 83 at [41].

The test of unreasonableness is a difficult one to satisfy; in Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175, the court (by majority) considered that negotiations for an offer of amends (where the plaintiff contended it was not reasonable to start proceedings which would imperil these negotiations) was an insufficient ground.