More v Weaver: CA 11 Jul 1928

The appellant brought the latest of several actions, this time alleging defamation in letters from the respondent to her own solicitors making certain statements about the appellant. Those letters had become public in the course of the earlier proceedings. The court was now asked whether such correspondence was subject to absolute privilege.
Held: This is a case of absolute, not qualified, privilege, and there was no ground for leaving to the jury the question whether the statements complained of were relevant. Swift J. was right in the view he took, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Scrutton, Lawrence, Greer LJJ
[1928] EWCA Civ 1, [1928] 2 KB 520
CitedBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
CitedBottomley v Brougham 1908
The official receiver is acting in a judicial capacity in making his report and his further report and in conducting the examination under that further report. A judge is privileged from inquiry as to whether he is malicious. Channell J considered . .
DoubtedMorgan v Wallis 1917
(Year?) privilege as between solicitor and client is qualified only, and not absolute. . .
CitedBrowne v Dunn HL 1893
Where counsel has with regard to a witness, ‘an intention to impeach the credibility of the story he is telling’, he must give that witness notice of his intention by putting that to him during cross examination, unless such intention was entirely . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Legal Professions

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552687