Supreme Court Ruling on Defamation Underscores Limits of Qualified Privilege

The Court found that the publication failed to meet the standard of responsible journalism, holding that the defence of qualified privilege is only applicable to mass media publications in “exceptional” circumstances and could not apply in this case due to the “materially inaccurate” nature of the publication.

Accuracy and Qualified Privilege

This ruling reinforces a key principle in defamation law: even when reporting on public records, accuracy is not negotiable; it highlights that qualified privilege is contingent on responsible journalism and editorial diligence.

Implications for Legal and Corporate Practice

Solicitors in defamation, media, and corporate law should remain cognisant of the importance of advising clients - both individuals and publishers - on the limits of legal protections like qualified privilege. Where publication is based on official sources, accuracy remains paramount, as reputational harm - particularly when uncorrected - can attract significant judicial remedies.

Looking Ahead

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this decision may influence how organisations assess risk and manage public disclosures, especially in environments where public disclosures carry significant legal implications.

Written by: Christian Carlyle