Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Application to have entire defamation claim withdrawn from jury is refused
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules on an application to have a defamation claim withdrawn from the jury in respect of individual defamatory statements, and: (a) refuses the application in respect of certain statements where a defence of qualified privilege had been raised as there had been evidence adduced which, if accepted, would entitle the jury to find on the balance of probabilities that there was malice on the part of the defendant at the time of publication; (b) refuses the application in respect of a published interview as there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that the officer of the defendant made the impugned statements on behalf of the defendant and that the comments had been understood to refer to the plaintiff; but (c) accedes to the application in respect of an alleged petition to remove the plaintiff from post, on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been adduced as to its existence.
Application by defendant to have defamation clam withdrawn from jury on grounds that insufficient evidence had been adduced - seven impugned statements, five of which met with plea of qualified privilege - express malice pleaded in statement of claim - plaintiff's contention that seven publications are interrelated and evidence a campaign by defendant to have him removed from his post - whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could properly find as a matter of probability that the defendant was actuated by malice at the time of the relevant publications protected by qualified privilege - whether there was sufficient evidence that a certain publication had even existed - whether there was sufficient evidence that an interview was given with authority of defendant and/or that said interview referred to the plaintiff - whether statements should be considered together as one campaign or separately.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
