Defendant made a false claim about Plaintiff and offered to make amends under s.2 of Defamation Act 1996 which Plaintiff rejected, so that Defendant claimed a defence under s.4(2) of the act.
Plaintiff sought to rebut this defence by saying that Defendant had reason to believe that facts to be false so that s.4(3) applied.
CA found for Defendant, saying that s.4(3) only applied where Defendant knew the facts were false, NOT that he ought to have known of the facts.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
GDL Tort Law | Defamation 2 Notes (15 pages) |