Sentences with phrase «qualified privilege»

The right of politicians to communicate information to the public has been protected by the defence of qualified privilege in recent defamation cases.

They are protected from defamation actions by qualified privilege for that reason.

Qualified privilege attaches to the occasion upon which the communication is made, not to the communication itself.

In addition, the court found that the defence of qualified privilege applied.

Prior to 1990, employers had a common law qualified privilege to discuss former employees with prospective employers without liability.

On the facts in the case at bar, I find that the defence of qualified privilege simply does not apply.

The defense of qualified privilege permits free communication in certain relationships without the risk of an action for defamation.

It defined «public participation» as an «occasion of qualified privilege» in which the defendant is provided with substantive protection from a claim in defamation.

The Supreme Court restored the decision of Mr Justice Tugendhat who had ruled, on the hearing of a preliminary issue, that The Times was entitled to rely on the defence of Reynolds qualified privilege in relation to the printed publication of the article about the claimant.

The Court further concluded that a defence of qualified privilege exists when a former employer provides a reference.

Clause 6 sets out a new defence of qualified privilege for peer - reviewed material in scientific or academic journals.

«In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court this week allowed the appeal of Times Newspapers Limited against a decision of the Court of Appeal which had held that held that it could not rely on Reynolds qualified privilege...»

The Committee on Super-injunctions, which was set up last April to examine concerns over the perceived growth of super-injunctions, said media stories that did not simply summarise or reprint Hansard «may well not» attract qualified privilege.

In Kanak, only qualified privilege was used as a defence and successfully argued.

An otherwise defamatory statement gets qualified privilege protection when the communication / statement is:

Unlike qualified privilege, it can not be defeated or lost because the statement was made with malice or an intent to hurt.

For purposes of defeating a defence of qualified privilege malice means the defendant had a «dominant and improper motive» to utter the publication.

The Court asserted «because the statutory qualified privilege is not available, each applicant must establish either the facts contained in the communication were true or, where the communication is opinion, that the facts upon which the opinion was based were true.»

's 43, 45, 49 and 53 for the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that the defence of qualified privilege extends to statements made by municipal councilors in council meetings.

Curran v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd 2012 S.L.T. 359: leading modern Scottish authority on defamation of a public figure and qualified privilege relating to statements in the press.

Communications to parents and health care providers, such as therapists, have been found by courts to be protected by qualified privilege.

In BC, the Libel and Slander Act, RSBC 1996, c 263 could similarly be amended to include the statutory defence of qualified privilege in appropriate cases.

This is because the law presumes, unless it is proven otherwise, that when qualified privilege attaches, the defamatory statements were made in good faith.

Qualified privilege applies to an occasion where the defendant has an interest or duty (legal, social, or moral) to communicate the defamatory expression and its recipients have a corresponding duty or interest to receive that communication: Pressler v. Lethbridge (2000), 86 B.C.L.R. (3d) 257 at 295, 2000 BCCA 639.

In Reynolds v Times Newspapers the English courts accepted a form of qualified privilege for commentary about public and political matters.

The defendants contended that what the publication complained of occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law, that the claimant had no real prospect of showing the publication was malicious and that, accordingly, summary judgment should be given for them.

The committee, set up last April to examine concerns over the perceived growth of super-injunctions, warned the media to be careful when relying on Parliamentary privilege, saying that media stories that did not simply summarise or reprint Hansard «may well not» attract qualified privilege.

[38] The defence of qualified privilege protects defamatory errors of fact which are not excused under the defences of justification or fair comment.

In Australia, the defences are: truth, absolute privilege, qualified privilege and honest opinion — the latter being the most relevant to food bloggers.

Evan Harris, a former MP who has been at the heart of the reform campaign, rightly argues that qualified privilege should be extended even further, to speakers at conferences and to peer - reviewed publications in academic journals, which spend large sums of money on legal advice and libel insurance and could be bankrupted by a single successful action.

Moreover, it proposes to extend the defence of «qualified privilege» — which exempts reports of recent parliamentary and court proceedings from libel — to medical and scientific conferences.

He further submits that his statements are protected by the defences of responsible communication on a matter of public interest; fair comment; justification; and qualified privilege.

Smith J. assessed a number of blog posts by Levant, and determined whether he could rely s. 2 (b) of the Charter, or on a number of established defences, including justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, or the Grant defence of responsible communication on a matter of public interest.

Even where the defence of qualified privilege would otherwise apply, it can still be defeated if it is shown that the person making the defamatory statement was motivated by malice when making the statement.

Malice is something the defamed person must prove in order to defeat a qualified privilege defence.

Communications of this nature will generally be protected under the defence of qualified privilege.

The defence of qualified privilege and whether or not it will apply has attracted a lot of attention by our courts, with variable results.

Although it applies to a broader range of occasions, qualified privilege is less clear - cut and more dependent on the specific circumstances surrounding a defamatory statement.

corporate, insurance adjuster, and private investigator defences premised on absolute and qualified privilege;