The link is to the recent judgment looking at the defence of "Fair Comment" or "Honest Comment" in respect of a defamation action.
In essence there is a movement on from the historic defence of "fair comment" which is basically a comment based upon asserted facts towards "honest comment".
For any more information it is best to read the judgment.
What worries me about this case, however, is the question of how large the legal costs bill is that has built up over a relatively straightforward issue.
In essence there is a movement on from the historic defence of "fair comment" which is basically a comment based upon asserted facts towards "honest comment".
For any more information it is best to read the judgment.
What worries me about this case, however, is the question of how large the legal costs bill is that has built up over a relatively straightforward issue.
Comments