Offers to Make Amends are formal settlement proposals under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). They must meet statutory requirements for timing, content and acceptance. An accepted offer that is carried out prevents a defamation action against the offering publisher concerning the matter. An unaccepted offer can provide a complete defence if it was made promptly, the publisher was ready and willing to perform it, and the offer was reasonable in all the circumstances. Rejecting an offer can also affect legal costs.
A publisher who has made a damaging mistake needs a way to repair it. A person whose reputation has been harmed needs something more useful than an apology buried where nobody will see it. The statutory procedure is intended to bring those interests together before the parties spend substantial money on litigation.
The difficulty is that a letter can look conciliatory yet fail the legislation. Equally, a technically compliant offer may do too little to repair the harm. This guide explains the Queensland requirements, the consequences of acceptance and rejection, and the drafting decisions that can determine whether the procedure actually resolves the dispute.
What are Offers to Make Amends under Queensland law?
The scheme appears in Part 3, Division 1 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). It applies where a person publishes material that is, or may be, defamatory of another person. It is available to an individual publisher as well as a media organisation.
Under section 13(2), an offer can address the publication generally or be confined to specified defamatory imputations: the damaging meanings conveyed about the complainant. That choice needs care because an accepted and performed offer can have consequences extending beyond the particular meanings addressed.
Offers to Make Amends are not compulsory. A publisher can dispute liability, negotiate an ordinary settlement, or use the statutory process where appropriate. Section 12(2)–(3) preserves other settlement procedures. What distinguishes this process is the possibility of a complete statutory defence if a reasonable offer is not accepted.
This article addresses the current Queensland scheme as at 26 October 2026. Historical publications and offers need a separate transitional analysis. Section 50 governs the application of the 2021 amendments. For the 2025 changes to offers, section 53(2)–(3) turns on when the offer was made, including where the publication predates those changes. Interstate publication also requires attention to the choice-of-law rules in section 11.
How concerns notices affect Offers to Make Amends
A concerns notice identifies the complaint and gives the publisher an opportunity to respond before proceedings. Under section 12A(1), it must be written, identify where the publication can be accessed, particularise the imputations complained of and explain the serious reputational harm alleged. An eligible corporate complainant must also identify the serious financial loss. A copy of the publication must accompany the notice if practicable.
A demand saying only that a post is offensive and must be removed may not satisfy those requirements. Stonegate Legal’s guide to sending a concerns notice in defamation explains the notice itself. For a recipient, the immediate priorities are to preserve the material, establish when the notice was given and assess the actual allegations; our guide to responding to a concerns notice addresses that initial response.
The meanings matter. An allegation that an accountant stole client funds is different from an allegation that the accountant failed to supervise an employee who stole them. An offer addressing poor supervision may leave the central accusation unanswered. The analysis in formulating and pleading defamatory imputations helps explain why those distinctions affect both settlement and the eventual claim.
Further particulars can change the deadline
If the notice inadequately particularises the location, imputations, serious harm or relevant corporate financial loss, section 12A(3) allows a written request for reasonable further particulars. This is not an unrestricted entitlement to demand the complainant’s entire trial evidence.
The complainant must supply the reasonable particulars within 14 days after the request is given, or a longer period agreed by the parties. Failure to do so means the concerns notice is treated as not having been given: section 12A(4)–(5). Our article on further particulars notices in defamation examines the scope of a proper request.
Deadlines for making and accepting Offers to Make Amends
There are two different clocks. The publisher has a period in which to make the offer. The offer must then remain available for the statutory acceptance period. Confusing those periods can produce a defective offer or premature proceedings.
| Step | Current Queensland requirement | Source |
| Ordinary period for making an offer | 28 days since the publisher was given a concerns notice | Section 14(2)(b) |
| Particulars provided after the first 14 days | 14 days since the publisher was given those further particulars; only the first particulars notice engages this rule | Section 14(2)(a) and (3) |
| Defence already served | An initial statutory offer cannot be made after the publisher has served a defence concerning the matter | Section 14(1)(b) |
| Time allowed to accept | The offer must provide for acceptance for at least 28 days commencing on the day it is made | Section 15(1)(ba) |
| Promptness needed for the defence | As soon as reasonably practicable after the concerns notice, and within the applicable period | Section 18(1)(a) |
For example, suppose further particulars responding to the first particulars notice are given 20 days after the concerns notice. The applicable offer period is then 14 days since the particulars were given. It is not automatically a fresh 28 days. A second particulars notice does not restart that special calculation.
Offers to Make Amends made near the end of the making period still require their own minimum acceptance period. Conversely, the rule restricting commencement of proceedings refers to the applicable period for making an offer, not a universal requirement to wait until every offer’s acceptance period expires. Section 12B(1) should be checked separately before filing.
For a publisher seeking the section 18 defence, the outer deadline is not permission to delay without reason. The legislation also requires reasonable promptness. Investigating the complaint, obtaining instructions and arranging a workable response should begin when the notice arrives.
What must Offers to Make Amends contain?
Section 15 sets out the required content. The current digital-publication exception deserves particular attention; older explanations frequently state the correction requirement too broadly.
| Component | Required or optional? | Drafting significance |
| Written and identifiable statutory offer | Required by section 15(1)(a)–(b) | Identify the Act, publication, offering publisher and complainant clearly. |
| Minimum 28-day acceptance period | Required by section 15(1)(ba) | A seven-day ultimatum does not satisfy this requirement. |
| Particulars of any limited imputations | Required where the offer is limited: section 15(1)(c) | State precisely which meanings are addressed. |
| Reasonable correction, clarification or additional information | Ordinarily required by section 15(1)(d), subject to subsection (1B) for digital matter | Specify the words, placement, audience and publication timing. |
| Reasonable steps to notify other recipients | Required in the circumstances described in section 15(1)(e), subject to subsection (1B) | Identify recipients and practical notification steps. |
| Reasonably incurred expenses | Required by section 15(1)(f) | Cover expenses before the offer and expenses of considering it. |
| Apology and compensation | Optional additions under section 15(1A)(a) and (c) | Their absence may nevertheless affect reasonableness. |
| Access-prevention steps for digital matter | Permitted by section 15(1A)(b) and (1B) | May replace or supplement either or both correction and notification offers. |
Corrections must address the damaging meaning
A correction should give the relevant audience a reason to revise what it understood. Saying that a complainant disagrees with an allegation may leave readers thinking the allegation remains credible. Equally, an apology for causing offence can avoid addressing whether the factual accusation was wrong.
For Offers to Make Amends involving a professional reputation, the audience can matter more than the raw number of readers. A message to a small group of referring doctors, customers or employers may require a targeted correction. A general statement on an unrelated webpage may achieve little.
Attach the proposed wording where possible. Specify the account, page, newsletter or recipients, the prominence, how long the correction will remain available, and when it will be published. These are practical drafting recommendations; the statute does not prescribe one standard form of correction for every dispute.
Digital material can be treated differently
Under section 15(1B), an offer to take access-prevention steps concerning digital matter may be made instead of, or in addition to, either or both of the correction and recipient-notification offers. The definition in Schedule 5 includes removing the matter or blocking, disabling or otherwise preventing access by some or all people.
That does not mean deletion alone automatically creates a reasonable statutory offer. The writing, identification, acceptance-period, scope and expenses requirements still need attention. The separate section 18 assessment remains. Removing a post after hundreds of readers have absorbed a false accusation may prevent further damage without repairing the damage already done.
Promises should also match the publisher’s control. Removing material from the publisher’s own account is different from guaranteeing that every screenshot or third-party repost will disappear. Offers to Make Amends should identify achievable steps rather than promise an internet-wide result the publisher cannot deliver.
Is compensation compulsory?
No fixed compensation payment is compulsory in every offer. Section 15(1A)(c) and (2) permit compensation, including a stated amount, an amount to be agreed, or an amount determined by an agreed arbitrator or a court.
But optional does not mean irrelevant. A modest publication corrected quickly may call for a different response from a damaging accusation of criminal dishonesty that has affected a person’s livelihood. A no-compensation offer must still be reasonable if the publisher intends to rely on it as a defence.
An offer to agree compensation later also needs thought. If the parties cannot agree, how will the amount be resolved? A court-determination mechanism can avoid leaving that central issue in a deadlock.
When are Offers to Make Amends reasonable?
Formal validity and substantive reasonableness are separate questions. Under section 18(1), the publisher must establish timely and reasonably prompt making of the offer, readiness and willingness to perform on acceptance, and reasonableness in all the circumstances.
Section 18(2)(a) requires consideration of any correction or apology published before trial, including its reach, comparative prominence and delay. Under section 18(2)(b), the court can consider a dispute about limited imputations and any other relevant matter.
The practical assessment should examine the gravity of the accusation, the actual audience, the harm, the strength of the claim and defences, and the remedy offered. Compensation cannot be sensibly assessed in isolation from the proposed public vindication. A generous-looking payment may accompany an inadequate correction; a useful correction may still leave substantial financial loss unanswered.
Serious reputational harm remains part of the underlying claim under section 10A(1). An eligible corporation must establish serious financial loss under subsection (2). Our discussion of the serious harm threshold in defamation explains why hurt feelings alone do not establish that element. Settlement advice should assess the claim that could actually succeed, rather than assume every unpleasant publication attracts substantial damages.
A false allegation of sexual assault illustrates why the substance of the proposed remedy matters. If an accusation has circulated among colleagues, clients or a local community, removing the original post may leave those readers’ beliefs unchanged. When assessing an offer, consider whether the proposed correction addresses the accusation directly, whether it will reach the relevant audience, and whether the compensation offered adequately reflects the evidence of harm.
For disputes involving allegations of this nature, our false sexual assault defamation lawyers can assess the publication, available defences and proposed settlement terms. The seriousness of the accusation does not make every offer inadequate, but it does require careful attention to what the proposal would actually do to repair the person’s reputation.
Case example 1 — Zoef and an inadequate response to serious allegations
In Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 283, an article concerning weapons offences identified an elderly tailor in circumstances involving his son, who shared his name. The trial judge upheld an offer-to-make-amends defence. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.
The renewed offer included $20,000 plus reasonable expenses and a proposed correction and apology. At [62]–[78], the Court assessed reasonableness objectively. The seriousness of the imputations, hurt and business damage, inadequate prominence of the proposed correction and apology, modest compensation and prospects of success together meant the offer was unreasonable. Judgment was entered for $150,000.
The lesson is not that compensation must match the eventual judgment. Offers to Make Amends require an overall response proportionate to the harm. Zoef was decided under the earlier NSW provisions, so its reasoning about adequacy should not be confused with the current Queensland procedural requirements.
Practical example — deleting a community-group accusation
Assume a local business owner wrongly accuses an identifiable competitor of stealing charity funds in a community Facebook group. The competitor complains about harm to their personal reputation. The post is removed, and the publisher sends a letter offering that removal and reasonable expenses, with the other statutory requirements addressed.
The digital exception means a correction is not invariably essential to formal compliance. Yet the accusation may already have reached customers who continue to believe it. A prompt correction in the same group, an appropriate apology and a properly assessed compensation proposal may be needed to make the overall response reasonable. This is a hypothetical illustration, not a prediction that any particular package would establish the defence.
What happens if Offers to Make Amends are accepted?
Acceptance should be clear and recorded in writing. Before accepting, settle the wording of any correction, performance dates, payment mechanism, costs treatment and the precise publication and parties covered. If additional terms are proposed, identify whether the response is an acceptance or a further proposal; avoid correspondence that leaves the parties arguing about what was agreed.
The decisive statutory consequence is in section 17(1). Where an accepted offer is carried out, including payment of compensation payable under it, the complainant cannot assert, continue or enforce a defamation action against that publisher concerning the matter. This applies even where the offer was limited to particular imputations.
That is a substantial consequence. A complainant should not assume that accepting a narrow correction preserves a damages action against the same publisher for other meanings in the same matter. Acceptance and performance need to be assessed against the statutory bar, not just the heading on the letter.
Section 15(3)–(4) allows the relevant court to determine compensation where the offer provides for court determination, and other questions about carrying out the offer. The power belongs to the court already hearing the defamation proceedings or, otherwise, the Supreme Court. Acceptance can therefore resolve liability while leaving a compensation assessment to be completed.
There is also a discretionary power concerning expenses resulting from acceptance, including indemnity assessment of legal costs forming part of those expenses: section 17(2)–(3). This is distinct from the mandatory offer concerning expenses incurred before the offer and in considering it.
Case example 2 — Vass and an offer that remained available
In Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Vass [2018] NSWCA 259, the publisher argued that the complainant’s later formal offer of compromise had brought an earlier offer of amends to an end. The offer of amends said it would remain open until trial unless withdrawn in writing.
The appeal was dismissed. The offer remained capable of acceptance on its terms. Leeming JA’s reasons at [164]–[176] explain the significance of the express written-withdrawal qualification. The decision cautions against assuming that an intervening settlement proposal necessarily terminates a statutory offer.
The later enforcement litigation must also be distinguished. In Vass v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 256, at [7]–[9], Parker J recorded that the subsequent claim to enforce the settlement had been dismissed after findings that the defamation claim was knowingly false. The 2018 decision addresses availability for acceptance, not immunity from a later challenge concerning fraud.
Vass concerned the earlier NSW scheme and the particular wording used. It does not mean every offer remains open indefinitely, or that ordinary contract principles are irrelevant to every question. The practical point is to check the offer’s actual terms and the statutory setting before treating it as expired, rejected or withdrawn.
What happens if Offers to Make Amends are rejected?
Rejection does not automatically defeat a claim. The publisher must establish the requirements of section 18(1). If established, however, the consequence is a defence to the action concerning the matter, not merely a reduction in damages.
A complainant assessing Offers to Make Amends should record the reasons why a proposal is inadequate. Identify the wrong audience, weak correction, unexplained compensation figure, omitted expenses or impractical performance terms. A response that explains a repairable problem also gives the publisher an opportunity to improve the proposal.
For the publisher, evidence of readiness and willingness matters. Preserve instructions authorising payment, arrangements for publication, the proposed correction and the correspondence. A promise dependent on approvals that have never been obtained can create an avoidable dispute about performance capacity.
Under section 18(3), the judicial officer decides whether this defence is established even in proceedings tried by jury. It is not correct under the current Queensland provision to assign this question to the jury.
Practical example — correcting an accusation sent to clients
Suppose a consultant emails six shared clients accusing another consultant of falsifying qualifications. The allegation is false. A private apology to the complainant does not tell those clients that the accusation should not be believed.
A properly considered offer could include an agreed correction to each recipient, reasonable expenses and compensation assessed against the evidence of harm. If the complainant rejects a comprehensive response simply because they want a public trial, they risk the statutory defence. If the offer leaves the damaging accusation with the six clients unanswered, the publisher faces a different reasonableness problem. Neither outcome can be decided from the existence of an apology alone.
Can Offers to Make Amends be withdrawn or renewed?
Section 16(1) permits withdrawal before acceptance by written notice. That provision must be considered alongside the required minimum acceptance period in section 15(1)(ba). A publisher should not assume that withdrawing early has no consequences for compliance or the intended defence.
A withdrawn offer may be renewed. Under section 16(2)–(4), the renewed offer is generally treated as a new offer, including for section 14. There is a specific exception to the time limit in section 16(5): a changed offer must genuinely address concerns raised about the withdrawn offer and be made within 14 days after withdrawal, or another agreed period.
Merely reissuing the same late proposal is not that exception. Nor should a publisher withdraw a workable offer casually while waiting for approval of its replacement. The sequence, wording and dates need deliberate handling.
Apologies, admissions and without-prejudice protection
Offers to Make Amends are taken to be without prejudice unless the offer provides otherwise: section 13(4). Section 19(1) also protects statements and admissions connected with making or accepting an offer from admission in legal proceedings.
The protection has express exceptions. Under section 19(2), evidence can be admitted to determine issues arising under or relating to the statutory division, or costs in defamation proceedings. A publisher relying on the offer as a defence cannot assume its contents will remain hidden from the deciding court.
Separately, section 20(1)–(2) provides that an apology does not constitute an admission of fault or liability and restricts its use as evidence of liability. That protection does not make an apology irrelevant to remedies. Section 38(1)(a)–(b) permits evidence of an apology or correction in mitigation of damages.
A publisher can therefore apologise without automatically conceding liability. Whether the proposed words adequately address the reputational harm remains a separate question.
Offers to Make Amends and legal costs
The costs consequences require their own analysis. Section 40(2)(b) addresses unsuccessful plaintiffs: where costs are to be awarded to the defendant and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to accept a settlement offer, indemnity assessment is required unless the interests of justice require otherwise.
The provision also operates against defendants. Under section 40(2)(a), a successful plaintiff receiving costs can obtain indemnity assessment where the defendant unreasonably failed to make or agree to a settlement offer, subject to the same interests-of-justice qualification.
Section 40(3) includes reasonable Offers to Make Amends within the definition of settlement offer. Indemnity costs can increase the amount recoverable, but do not guarantee repayment of every dollar spent. Rejecting an offer is not an automatic indemnity-costs order; the statutory conditions and the outcome of proceedings matter.
An ordinary settlement proposal or Calderbank offer may remain useful where the statutory offer period has passed. Our guide to Calderbank offers and early settlement explains that separate costs mechanism. Such a proposal does not acquire the section 18 defence simply because it is labelled an offer of amends.
Protecting the claim while negotiations continue
The general Queensland limitation period is one year from publication under section 10AA(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Negotiations do not themselves suspend it.
There is a specific automatic extension where a concerns notice is given within the final 56 days: section 10AA(2)–(3). The additional period is calculated using the statutory formula. It is not a fresh year and is not a general extension for every settlement discussion.
A discretionary extension up to three years from publication is available where the court considers it just and reasonable, applying section 32A(2)–(3). It should not be treated as a substitute for acting within time. Electronic publication dates and repeat publication also need attention to section 10AA(4) and section 10AB; leaving a webpage online does not necessarily create a fresh limitation period every day.
Before filing, check section 12B(1)–(3) of the Defamation Act. The concerns notice, proposed imputations and elapsed offer period must be addressed, including any available leave concerning the waiting period. A statement of claim cannot itself serve as the concerns notice under section 12A(2). Our guide to defamation pleadings in Queensland explains the transition from the notice to the pleaded case.
What to check before sending or accepting an offer
For a publisher, the first task is to identify the publication and complaint accurately. Check the deadline before drafting. Confirm the proposed response reaches the people who received the accusation, includes the required expenses and can actually be performed. Then assess whether the package is reasonable, rather than stopping at formal compliance.
For a complainant, compare the offer with the realistic outcome of litigation: prospects of proving serious harm, available defences, recoverable compensation, likely costs and the value of a prompt correction. Read any release, confidentiality provision, undertaking and payment mechanism carefully. An additional condition may materially alter the commercial value of the proposal.
Where several people published the material, identify who is offering to settle. Section 13(3) provides that an offer by one or more publishers does not affect the liability of the others. Wider contractual releases should still be examined before acceptance.
Finally, give the documents properly and retain proof. Section 44(1)–(2) regulates giving and serving notices and other documents, including specified electronic methods. The current provision is broader than older email-only descriptions. An assumption about delivery can become a dispute about whether the statutory clock ever started.
