When Online Criticism Becomes Defamation: Lessons from Hall v Aldridge [No. 2]

Partner Matthew Lilly discuss this important topic.

Writer beware! What you need to know before venting your frustrations on social media about your local government

A long-running court battle ended in the WA Supreme Court earlier this year when a suburban Perth mayor won a quarter of a million dollars in a lengthy defamation battle with one of his own constituents in Hall v Aldridge [No. 2] [2026] WASC 3 found that the rate payer defendant, Mr Richard Aldridge, to have defamed City of Canning Mayor, Mr Patrick Hall, over a series of social media posts made in 2022.

The case is the most recent illustration of how the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act) balances freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the responsibilities of local government officials to act with integrity and avoid causing harm through their communications, on the other.

The case

At the centre of the case was Mr Aldridge’s view; that being, Mr Hall’s public endorsement of certain candidates for election to the council of the City (Council).

Mr Aldridge said this conduct contravened the requirement under Item 18 of the City’s Code of Conduct (adopted Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA)) that council members must not “make improper use of their office… to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for the council member or any other person.”

Following repeated complaints about the alleged contravention, the Local Government Standards Panel (Standards Panel), which oversees compliance with the LG Act, ultimately formed the view that the “endorsement and support of election candidates is a common and usual feature of the political system in Australia” and that “provided that a councillor provides such support in an objective, honest and fair manner and without resorting to negatively referring to other candidates” there is nothing inherently improper about it.

Some months later, Mr Aldridge posted on a community Facebook page that it was “inherently improper for a Mayor in his Role of Mayor to support a particular candidate unless the Council has made and passed a resolution to support that candidate.”

Notably, the Court considered this post to be within the bounds of legitimate debate and freedom of expression, and therefore not defamatory.

However, seven subsequent Facebook posts were found to have defamatory imputations. Just looking at the Court’s reasoning of the first of these is instructive.

The alleged imputations

Mr Aldridge’s first post considered defamatory by the Court comprised the re-posting of an image of Mayor Patrick Hall’s endorsement of a candidate with his original text stating:

“The spokesman of the City of Canning has just endorsed a candidate WITHOUT the permission or approval of the Council or the City of Canning. I think this is blatant abuse of this role as spokesman* which could effectively disadvantage all other competing candidates.

* Local Government Act 2.8(d) 

The above is my opinion.”

This image and text were reposted by Mr Aldridge to other community pages with the following additional text:

“Patrick Hall the person is entitled to any opinion he wants but the Mayor needs to represent the views of the City and Council as per the Local Government Act.”

In Court, Mr Hall submitted the following imputations arose from the ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ of the first publication:

1. Mr Hall, in the conduct of his role as the Mayor of the City, had acted beyond the powers of the office of Mayor, by endorsing a candidate for local election without first seeking the permission or approval of the City or its Council.
2. Mr Hall had no regard for the limits of his authority in the conduct of his role as Mayor of the City.
3. Mr Hall was cavalier in the conduct of his role as Mayor of the City.
4. Mr Hall had acted in breach of the LG Act in the conduct of his role as Mayor of the City by endorsing a candidate for election without the prior approval of Council or the City.

The Court found that the first and fourth alleged imputations above were proven.

The character of a defamatory imputation

The Court cited three assertions made in the Mr Aldridge’s post to arrive at this conclusion.

First was Mr Aldridge’s assertion concerning Mr Hall’s failure to obtain the “permission or approval” of the City, including his choice to capitalise and thus emphasising the word ‘WITHOUT’.

Second was Mr Aldridge’s unqualified assertion that the endorsement was a “blatant abuse” of the Mr Hall’s role as “spokesman” for the City.

Third was the reference to what Mr Hall “needs” to do in order to comply with the LG Act.

The Court found that the combined effect of these assertions was to convey the sense that Mr Hall was acting in breach of the LG Act and, therefore, unlawfully. The emphatic tone, the quoting of the LG Act, and the generally unqualified terms of the assertions were all intended to lend the assertions credibility and authority.

This finding contrasted with the second and third imputations, which the Court found were “cast in much broader terms impugning Mr Hall’s overall attitude to the office he holds” and in their generality, having the character more of an opinion rather than a statement of fact.

Defence of honest opinion

The defence of honest opinion is a common law and statutory defence to defamation. It succeeds where an opinion is found to be honest, even if it is unreasonable.

However, the defence of honest opinion will be defeated by malice, showing that the person holding the opinion must be acting reasonably and in good faith.

The Court found that while Mr Aldridge believed his assertions to be true, the basis for this truth was in his contempt for Mr Hall. The Court pointed to the evolution of his dispute with the City, which centred on a planning proposal but grew into determined attack on Mr Hall’s legitimacy as Mayor, using his political endorsements somewhat opportunistically as a vector for this attack.

The Court noted that the Standards Panel, while deciding upon the substantive question of whether a Mayor can make endorsements, also formed the view that the motivation behind this complaint was in fact Mr Aldridge’s intent to harass Mr Hall.

The lessons

The key takeaway from this analysis of Hall v Aldridge [No. 2] is that making specific assertions concluding upon the lawfulness of another’s actions is fraught.

This is particularly the case when the statutory limits of power to which a decision maker or person of authority is subject are not especially prescriptive, as in this case and the broad ‘role’ of the Mayor of a local council.

But further, it is good advice to keep any opinion firmly anchored in substance of the contentious matter at hand and try not to allow any associated resentment to become the primary motivation in exercising your general (but not unqualified) right to freedom of expression.

How can HHG Legal Group help?

Email us to find out more

*The information provided in this website serves as a general guide and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on our research and experience at the time of publication. Please consult our knowledgeable legal team for any specific inquiries or advice relevant to your circumstances, as the content may not have been updated subsequently.