Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc: QBD 28 Oct 1994

Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: ‘Historically, qualified privilege meant a state of affairs which negatived legal malice and meant that the plaintiff had to prove malice in fact. The classic form of qualified privilege, which depends on a social or moral duty to communicate information and a reciprocal duty or interest in receiving it, was never easy for a newspaper to invoke, because a newspaper necessarily publishes its contents indiscriminately. The courts, however, have always recognised that the reporting of certain matters to the public at large is in the public interest because those matters relate to some aspect of the community’s public affairs which it is right should be in the public domain, even if they are defamatory and may be untrue.’

Judges:

Jonathan Sumption QC

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 7

Citing:

CitedPerera v Peiris PC 1949
Qualified privilege claim upheld
(Ceylon) The ‘Ceylon Daily News’ had published extracts from a report of the Bribery Commission which was critical of Dr. Perera’s lack of frankness in his evidence. The Judicial Committee upheld a claim to qualified privilege. In the light of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromTsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc CA 30-Sep-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90019