There is a legal case unfolding in Queensland that every blogger should keep a watching brief over as it could set an unpleasant precedent for freedom of speech.

The case suggests that lawyers are beginning to circumvent the new uniform defamation code by resorting to the civil tort of “injurious falsehood” as a way of seeking big payouts from media companies for their corporate clients.

The case has been initiated by a software company called 2Clix against Simon Wright, the host of a popular IT blogsite called Whirlpool.

The case is likely to clarify how moderators are meant to behave when hosting forums in which contributors say defamatory things and, specifically, it should establish whether a website that posts derogatory comments by contributors is acting maliciously – an important test for proving injurious falsehood.

In its statement of claim, lodged on Monday, 2Clix cited around 30 postings on Whirlpool that were critical of its products. It claims the comments were both “false and malicious” and that the website refused to remove them after the company complained. It is seeking damages of $150,000 for each month that the comments remain on the website and wants two “forum threads” removed from the site.

Under Australia’s new uniform defamation code — which came into force at the beginning of last year — corporations are not allowed to sue. Only companies with less that 10 employees or not-for-profit groups can take action for defamation, although individuals within companies can sue if they allege that they have been personally defamed.

So instead, 2Clix, and its solicitor, Stephen Baldwin of Turnbull and Company, took the unusual path of suing under the little-used tort of injurious falsehood. The test for injurious falsehood is considered higher than defamation as plaintiffs have to prove the statements were untrue and that there was malice on the part of the defendant.

2Clix is relying on the decision in a case called Kaplan v Go Daddy Group in 2006 when a NSW Supreme Court judge ruled that a person who hosted a website called hunterholdensucks.com “established the site and thereby invited disparaging comments.”

2Clix believes its case fulfils the criteria to establish an injurious falsehood, as set out in another important case called Haines v the ABC of 1995.

Whether these cases are applicable will be an important issue.

Whirlpool has declared that the action by 2Clix “has no merit” and has vowed to “defend the matter vigorously,” Simon Wright and the lawyers for Whirlpool put a message on the site urging contributors not to prejudge the case by posting inflammatory remarks.

But traffic on Whirlpool has increased with most comments criticising 2Clix for suing and some offering to contribute to a legal fund to fight back.

Simon Wright has another 25 days in which to file a defence.