Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defamation - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Instances where freedom of communication without fear of an action for defamation > protection of a person’s reputation
      - Absolute
        
        Meaning
        
        Complete freedom of communication is the utmost significance
        
        P has no legal redress
        
        No matter how malicious and outrageous the statements are
        
        Ie. statements made in parliamentary proceedings and official reports by Parliament
        
        Reports in judicial proceedings
        
        Executive Privilege: Statements by one officer of state to another whilst in their executive duty
        
        Communication between Solicitor and client within a litigation matter.
      - Qualified
        
        Meaning
        
        Only if D made defamatory remarks without malice and honestly
        
        Common Law defence
        
        MALICE IS FATAL!
        
        “a statement is made with an honest belief of its truth and was made without malice.”
        
        WHY? Founded to allow people to express and discuss their interests honestly and free from fear of defamation laws,
        
        P can defeat this defence on ground of malice but, burden of proof is on P. (on balance of probabilities) that statement mades weren’t to express common interest/concern but to injure the P’s reputation.
        
        ie: Reports of Parliamentary Proceedings.
        
        Must be fair/accurate to enjoy the protections
        
        Statements must be able to clarify doubts on a common interests (actor asked on their director)
        
        Statements must follow a legal, social or moral duty to protect or inform
        
        statements made in protection of one’s private interests (A criticises B, B responded with defamatory statement = B protected)
  - - - Honest criticism that is identified as necessary to the efficiency of working of any public institution/office
      - MUST BE made on matter of public interest
      - The statement must be an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact.
      - The comments must be fair. It must be based on true facts in existence when the comment was made.
      - NO MALICE
      - OBJECTIVE TEST IS USED “Would a fair-minded person honestly express such an opinion on the given facts?”
        *if a fair- minded person can determine whether statement is a comment, based on the proved facts
        
        the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment
      - NOT AN ASSERTION OF FACT
  - - - Defamatory statement is made innocently
    - - Publication was made innocently
      - Offer of amends was made ASAP (practicable)
      - Offer of amends was not withdrawn
  - - - Complete
      - “It was the truth”
      - Defamatory statement was THE TRUTH
        
        *EVEN IF STATEMENT IS MADE MALICIOUSLY
      - Whether or not the defendant considered the statement to be true/false is not a defence
      - D must prove the statement was true NOT the P.
  - - - Complete
      - Plaintiff agreed to the publication of defamatory material
      - Can be expressed or implied
- - - - Standing of P and D (Socially ?)
      - Extent of circulation of publication
      - Gravity of defamatory remarks
      - presence/absence of malice
      - D’s failure to apologise
  - - - The existing reputation of the plaintiff
      - The behaviour of the plaintiff
      - The extent of the publication
      - Sums of compensation received by the Plaintiff from other similar
      - Publications
      - Whether adequate apology has been tendered - See Section 10, Defamation Act, Cap. 75.
- - - - No individual lawyer/single person from the group can sue.
  - - - Words were aimed specifically at an individual within the group
      - Group is small enough for individuals to be identified easily. (Question of fact- is the group small enough?)
- - - - Vulgar spoken abuse are considered general vituperation (bitter/abusive manner) and carries the possibility to not be slander.
      - If words were spoken in an arguing manner, it would not be considered defamation.
      - WRITTEN WORDS will not be considered abuse
        
        The defendant had time to think before he wrote the words and third-party may not know anything about the dispute that led them to writing as such.
    - - Obvious meaning
      - Innuendo/hidden meaning;
        
        For an innuendo to amount to a defamatory statement, there must be:
        
        extrinsic facts that would give rise to a defamatory imputation
        
        those facts must be known to one or more person to whom the words were published
        
        the knowledge of those extrinsic facts causes the words to convey the defamatory imputation relied on by the plaintiff
      - Extrinsic facts that gives rise to a defamatory imputation (represent sth undesirable as being done by someone)
      - Must be known to one or more persons intended for when words were published
      - Knowledge of the extrinsic facts made the words convey the defamatory imputation relied by the plaintiff.
    - - ie: Statement is made known to any third-party
      - Defamatory statements between plaintiff and defendant PRIVATELY = no publication = no action
        
        *communication between spouses are not considered publication
        
        not inclusive if the D made the statement to P’s spouse.
      - Intention on publication of defamatory statement is IRRELEVANT; D is still liable as statement is published through D’s negligence.
    - - Whether or not the defendant intended to refer to the plaintiff is NOT RELEVANT
        
        as long as people know enough to refer to the plaintiff
        
        fictional/similar names are also sufficient enough for third-parties to refer to the plaintiff
      - Test
        
        fair-minded reasonable reader/listener can conclude the statement is referred to the plaintiff wholly