The Court of Appeal’s decisions create legal precedent, so this is significant, as is the detail of the finding, which said, on the question of malice: “Proof of ill-will, prejudice, bias, recklessness, lack of belief in truth or some improper motive is insufficient of itself to establish that malice actuated the publication”. So forget a legal action for defamation – it’s too high a bar to cross.
That’s what I actually wrote and perhaps I should have said that I would forget defamation, because I think it’s too high a bar.
That said, the Court of Appeal – the highest court in the state – stated that proof of ill-will and lack of belief in truth is insufficient evidence that the comments were initiated due to malice. The finding also cited the fact that the emails in question referred to an issue that was relevant to the management of the strata scheme – the matter of letterbox security.
The fact that reference to such a relatively trivial matter expunged malice would be a red flag for me if I was considering rolling the dice on a defamation case. BTW, it does not surprise me one jot that defamation lawyers are encouraging potential clients to consider such action.
The real question is what the OP wants – the abuse to stop or to punish the abuser (or both). Perhaps threatening defamation action (but not taking it) might stop the abuse but the abuser is just as capable of trawling the internet for case studies as anyone else. And maybe stopping the abuse would be a punishment in itself, since the abuser is clearly getting some sort of satisfaction from their tirades.
Having witnessed a strata-related defamation action at close quarters, I can tell you that all it resulted in was distress for the defendants and a $300,000 legal bill for the plaintiff, mainly because they failed to prove malice even though one defendant had used strong language – “f*** him” – in an email. Everyone lost – except the defamation lawyers who did quite nicely, thank you very much.
IMHO the OP might do well to take the easiest route and get an APVO. Leave defamation to the likes of Donald Trump and Ben Roberts-Smith, both of whom have big bucks behind them.
You can read the Court of Appeal findings on the Manly defamation case HERE. Its decisions are far-reaching – don’t forget that it was its ruling that changed the laws on pets in apartments for the whole country.