Thompson v Australian Capital Television

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd*. The dispute concerned the publication of a defamatory article by the respondent, Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd, which the appellant, Mr. Thompson, alleged was defamatory of him. Mr. Thompson sought damages for the harm to his reputation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to the respondent in respect of the defamatory publication. Specifically, the court had to determine if the circumstances of the publication were such that the respondent was under a legal, moral, or social duty to publish the information, and if the appellant had a corresponding interest in receiving it.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that qualified privilege could not be established. Their Honours reasoned that while the respondent had a duty to inform the public about matters of public interest, this duty did not extend to publishing defamatory material about an individual without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. The court emphasised that the defence of qualified privilege requires not only an interest in the recipient but also a duty or interest in the publisher to communicate the information. In this instance, the court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to verify the truth of the defamatory statements, thereby vitiating the defence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court that the defence of qualified privilege was not applicable.