Qualified privilege not established in defamation proceedings involving allegedly counterfeit note

Defamation – legality of a €10 note which he proffered for an alcoholic drink was called into question by a barman employed in a public house in Rathmines, Dublin – whether the words spoken by, and the conduct of, the defendant’s barman were such as to infer in their natural and ordinary meaning that the plaintiff was guilty of fraudulent conduct, that he was guilty of an offence under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, and that he could not be trusted – appeal of circuit Court award of damages of €5,000 – defence of qualified privilege – justification – defence of truth – whether there was publication – Salmond & Heuston, Law of Torts, 21st Ed., (Sweet & Maxwell, 1996) – plaintiff has established that the words were likely to have been heard and seen by members of the public who were seated nearby at the bar counter – Section 15 of the Defamation Act 2009 – Gatley on Libel and Slander, 9th Ed., (Sweet & Maxwell, 1998) – Cox & McCullough, Defamation Law and Practice, (Clarus Press, 2014) – McMahon & Binchy, Law of Torts, 4th Ed., (Bloomsbury, 2013) – Mitchell, “Duties, Interests and Motives: Privileged Occasions in Defamation” (1998) 18 O.J.L.S. 381 – defence of qualified privilege is not excluded in circumstances other than those where mutuality of interest or duty exists – defence of qualified privilege has not been established – publication was to a limited number of people – Circuit Court judge’s assessment of damages in the sum of €5,000 was appropriate – appeal dismissed.