In the case of WeGo Kayaking Ltd. v. Sewid.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court found that the defendant's statements were motivated by malice, which defeated the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment. The defendant had made false statements about the plaintiff's business and its impact on the environment, and had done so with the intention of harming the plaintiff's reputation. As a result, the defence of qualified privilege (which applies when a statement is made in the public interest and without malice) was not available to the defendant. Similarly, the defence of fair comment (which applies when a statement is an opinion based on facts that are true and made without malice) was not available because the defendant had knowingly made false statements.

In the Case of WeGo Kayaking Ltd