Post

Evidence – Witness Opinion: In defamation cases, a plaintiff may call ordinary witnesses to testify how they understood the alleged libel, though the tribunal is not bound to adopt those opinionssierralii.gov.sl.

Defamation – Imputation of Bankruptcy: Words implying that a person has committed an act of bankruptcy (i.e. that the person could be made bankrupt) are defamatory if unfoundedsierralii.gov.sl.

Defamation – Insulting Conduct: Words imputing insulting or dishonourable conduct to a medical doctor, thereby lowering him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, are libellous and actionable per sesierralii.gov.sl.

Defamation – Professional Incompetence: Words impugning a doctor’s professional competence, exposing him to ridicule among colleagues, are defamatory and actionable per se (no proof of special damage required)sierralii.gov.sl.

Qualified Privilege – Court Reports: A newspaper report of legal proceedings will attract qualified privilege only if it is shown to be a fair and accurate report of what took place. The burden is on the defendant to prove such fairness and accuracy to establish the privilege as a complete defencesierralii.gov.sl.

Malice – Defeating Privilege: Express malice negates qualified privilege. Evidence of antecedent hostile relations between the reporter and the plaintiff can be considered when determining if a purportedly privileged court report was published with malicesierralii.gov.sl.

Privilege – Accuracy Standard: Strict accuracy is expected from a trained legal reporter. Minor inaccuracies or omissions might be excused in a lay reporter’s account, but a legally trained court reporter is held to a higher standard of accuracysierralii.gov.sl (citing Hope v. Leng & Co.).