Where is the logic in the taxpayer being liable
to pay damages
to the victim 10 or 15 years after the event, whereas the offender enjoys the protection of a strict six - year time bar as an
absolute defence to a damages
claim?
Where an investigator for a regulatory body sends emails
to two complainants who have alleged fraud against a member, the investigator may be protected from a
claim for «defamation» arising from the content of his emails (e.g., where he confirms
to the recipients that the body is prosecuting the member for professional [mis] conduct for the fact that he recklessly [carried out certain conduct]»), based on the
defence of «
absolute privilege».