Horrocks v Lowe

• The defendant made a statement in a council meeting, a context that would ordinarily attract qualified privilege. The plaintiff argued the defendant acted with malice, which would defeat this privilege. The specific question was what standard of malice is required to defeat qualified privilege.

1. What standard of malice is required to defeat the defence of qualified privilege in defamation.

• Malice in this context requires proof that the defendant either knew the statement was false, was recklessly indifferent to its truth or falsity, or was predominantly motivated by some improper purpose unconnected to the duty or interest the privilege protects. A lower threshold, such as mere negligence or an honest but mistaken belief, does not defeat qualified privilege. On the facts, the defendant's genuine, if possibly mistaken, belief did not satisfy this demanding malice standard.

Qualified privilege protects good faith communications made pursuant to a recognised duty or interest. It is defeated only by malice meeting a demanding standard: actual knowledge of falsity, reckless indifference to truth, or predominant improper motive. Mere negligence, error, or an honestly held mistaken belief is insufficient.