Johnson (nee Renault) v Lucas [1982] JLR 67 (19 January 1982)

Johnson (nee Renault) v Lucas [1982] JLR 67 (19 January 1982)

Falsity alone does not establish malice; only knowledge of falsity, lack of belief in truth, or recklessness as to truth or falsity by the defendant constitutes conclusive evidence of malice in the context of qualified privilege.

Citation
[1982] JLR 67
Parties
Plaintiff: Johnson (nee Renault); Defendant: Lucas
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 January 1982
Procedural Posture
Tort Defamation / Judgment
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice
Tort Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnson (nee Renault)

Plaintiff

Lucas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Defamation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether falsity of a statement is evidence of malice in defamation under qualified privilege
  2. 2 What constitutes conclusive evidence of malice in such cases

Ratio Decidendi

Falsity alone does not establish malice; only knowledge of falsity, lack of belief in truth, or recklessness as to truth or falsity by the defendant constitutes conclusive evidence of malice in the context of qualified privilege.