The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the defendant, to write a letter to General Scobell, which was released to the press, vindicating him and in turn containing defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
Held: The letter was protected by qualified privilege. It was for the judge to decide whether there is any evidence of express malice fit to be left to the jury – that is, whether there is any evidence on which a reasonable man could find malice. Otherwise it is for the judge to determine whether the privilege applies. The defence of qualified privilege is based on public policy. It is usually analysed in terms of duty and interest.
Lord Dunedin said that the proper rule as respects irrelevant defamatory matter incorporated in a statement made on a privileged occasion is to treat it as one of the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether, in all the circumstances, an inference that the defendant was actuated by express malice can properly be drawn.
Lord Atkinson discussed the test for privilege: ‘It was not disputed, in this case on either side, that a privileged occasion is, in reference to qualified privilege, an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential. Nor is it disputed that a privileged communication — a phrase often used loosely to describe a privileged occasion and vice versa — is a communication made upon an occasion which rebuts the prima facie presumption of malice arising from a false and defamatory statement prejudicial to the character of the plaintiff, and puts the latter to proof that there was malice in fact.’ and
After citingthe authorities: ‘These . . in my view clearly establish that a person making a communication on a privileged occasion is not restricted to the use of such language merely as is reasonably necessary to protect the interest or discharge the duty which is the foundation of his privilege; but that, on the contrary, he will be protected, even though his language should be violent or excessively strong, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he might have honestly and on reasonable grounds believed that what he wrote or said was true or necessary for the purpose of his vindication, though in fact it was not so.’
Lord Loreburn said: ‘I understand the law to be as follows: It is for the judge alone to rule whether or not there is an occasion of privilege, and the rule on that subject was laid down many years ago in the case of Toogood v Spyring. Subsequent decisions have illustrated the rule, but the fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily protect all that is said or written on that occasion. Anything that is not relevant and pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the safeguarding of the interest which creates the privilege will not be protected. To say that foreign matter will not be protected is another way of saying the same thing.’
Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘Privileged, however, as the occasion might be, it was contended that the communication went beyond the occasion and so was not protected by privilege. I humbly think that this is a more correct way of stating the proposition than is usually adopted. Privilege is a term which is applied in a two senses. There is a privileged occasion, and there is also said to be a privileged communication. The former expression is correct; the latter, strictly viewed, tends to error. What is meant with regard to a privileged occasion is that it was protected as being within the scope of the privilege attaching to the occasion. The occasion is privileged, the communication is protected.
If, accordingly, and in so far as the communication deals with matter not in any reasonable sense germane to the subject-matter of the occasion, the protection is gone: the occasion with its privilege does not reach a communication upon this foreign and totally unconnected matter.’
Lord Finlay LC said: ‘If the communication was made in pursuance of a duty or on a matter in which there was a common interest on the party making and the party receiving it, the occasion is said to be privileged. This privilege is only qualified and may be rebutted by proof of express malice.’
Lord Finlay LC, Lord Atkinson, Lord Dunedin, Lord Loreburn, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
 AC 309,  AC 309,  All ER 151,  AC 309, [1916-17] All ER 157, 86 LJKB 849
- Downtex -v- Flatley, CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 1282)
- Meade -v- Pugh and Another, QBD, Cited, (Bailii,  EWHC 408 (QB))
- Alexander -v- Arts Council of Wales, CA, Cited, (Times 27-Apr-01, Gazette 01-Jun-01, Bailii,  1 WLR 1840,  EWCA Civ 514,  4 All ER 205,  EMLR 27)
- Khader -v- Aziz and Another, QBD, Cited, (Bailii,  EWHC 2027 (QB))
- Reynolds -v- Times Newspapers Ltd and others, HL, Cited, (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, House of Lords, Bailii,  2 AC 127,  UKHL 45,  4 All ER 609,  3 WLR 1010,  EMLR 1,  HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)
- Kingshott -v- Kent Newspapers Limited, , Cited, ( 1 QB 88)
- Jameel -v- Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, HL, Cited, (Bailii,  UKHL 44, Times 12-Oct-06,  3 WLR 642,  AC 359,  Bus LR 291,  EMLR 2,  EMLR 14,  4 All ER 1279, 21 BHRC 471,  HRLR 41)
- Malik -v- Newspost Ltd and others, QBD, Cited, (Bailii,  EWHC 3063 (QB))
- Horrocks -v- Lowe, HL, Cited, ( AC 135,  1 All ER 662)
- Clift -v- Slough Borough Council and Another, QBD, Cited, (Bailii,  EWHC 1550 (QB))
- Watts -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling & Lom, CA, Cited, (Times 22-Sep-95,  QB 650, Bailii,  EWCA Civ 45,  2 WLR 427,  EMLR 1,  1 All ER 152)
- Prebble -v- Television New Zealand Ltd, PC, Cited, (Times 13-Jul-94, Gazette 26-Oct-94,  1 AC 321,  3 NZLR 1, Bailii,  3 WLR 970)
- Flood -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 804,  WLR (D) 187, WLRD,  EMLR 26,  1 WLR 153)
- Clift -v- Slough Borough Council, CA, Cited, ( 3 All ER 118,  EMLR 271,  1 WLR 1774,  All ER (D) 243, Bailii,  EWCA Civ 1484,  PTSR 990)