Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

Vikram, a trader, makes a defamatory allegation about Rohit in a letter to Rohit's employer, honestly believing it true and having a duty to inform the employer of a matter affecting Rohit's work. The allegation proves false. The employer alone reads it. Which analysis is most accurate?

Vikram has qualified privilege. A good-faith statement made under a duty or interest to a person with a corresponding interest is protected even if false, but the protection is lost if Rohit proves malice. It is not absolute privilege, and sending to the employer is publication.

  1. AVikram is liable because truth is the only defence to defamation
  2. BVikram has qualified privilege, which is defeated only if Rohit proves maliceCorrect
  3. CVikram has absolute privilege, so malice is irrelevant
  4. DVikram is not liable because the letter was a private communication, so there was no publication

Explanation

A communication made in good faith by a person with a duty or interest to a person with a corresponding interest or duty attracts qualified privilege. It protects even false statements but is lost if the plaintiff proves malice or improper motive. Absolute privilege is limited to cases such as parliamentary or judicial proceedings. Communication to the employer is publication to a third person, so option four is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions