Legal interpretation-Howard v Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 154., Summary of Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 (Qld), Hypothetical

Howard v Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 154. (Court of Appeal) Judges: McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Ambrose J. Facts: The appellant is the plaintiff in this action against the respondent, claiming for damages for psychiatric injury. Under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the appellant can be classified as a whistleblower; and the allegations made by the appellant are that the actions made against him by two of his fellow employees constituted reprisal under s41 of the Act, and …

…person has a defence of absolute privilege for publishing the disclosed information" (s 39 (2) (a)). However, in the aspect of a defamation lawsuit, the 'absolute privilege' defence is invalid, as JC is not protected under the Whistleblowers Protection Act for the disclosure he made to the ABC, as it was not a relevant public entity to make the disclosure of the type (refer to paragraph (1.3). Therefore, it is likely that JC would be liable for defamation.