The defendants, employees of British Airways, sought summary judgement against the claimant in his claim for defamation in several emails. They had discussed the detention of the claimant under suspicion of theft at the airport, and claimed qualified privilege. The defendants said that the claimant had not pleaded sufficient malice to displace that privilege.
Held: It would be wrong at this stage to shut the claimant out from asserting facts which might displace the defence. Summary judgement would only be proper where there was no possible basis for a conclusion that the claimant had been dishonest, and that a jury would be perverse to draw such an inference.
Eady J
[2009] EWHC 3244 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Somerville v Hawkins 1851
It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a . .
Cited – Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales QBD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant sought an order to strike out the claimant’s allegations of defamation and other torts. The defendants claimed qualified privilege in that the statements complained of were contained in a report prepared by it in fulfilment of its . .
Cited – Turner v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (MGM) HL 1950
A letter was published which criticised a film critic’s review of the week’s films.
Held: A person (including a corporation) whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer the attack, and the answer will be protected by . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.383802