Rowan v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, represented by Mr S.R. Horgan, sought to challenge the existing legal standard concerning qualified privilege in defamation law. The respondent, Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd, was represented by Mr B. Griffin. The core of the dispute revolved around the mental state required of a defamer to attract the protection of qualified privilege.

The legal issue before the Court was whether, in situations where qualified privilege might otherwise apply, the belief of the defamer in the truth of the defamatory statement should be required to be not only honest but also reasonable. The applicant argued that the current legal position, which requires only an honest belief, as established in cases like *Horrocks v Lowe*, was too restrictive and that an objective element of reasonableness should be incorporated.

The applicant's submission, drawing on *Horrocks v Lowe* and *Hodgson v Scarlett*, contended that while an honest belief is presently sufficient, the concept of "bona fide" communication, as discussed in earlier authorities, implied a standard that encompassed more than mere subjective honesty. The applicant argued that a defamer who publishes untrue defamatory matter recklessly, without regard for its truth or falsity, should not be protected by qualified privilege, suggesting that this recklessness could be assessed objectively. The applicant sought to persuade the Court that the law should evolve to include a requirement for reasonable belief, not just honest belief, in the context of qualified privilege.