Our law provides that once a publication is proved to have been defamatory (damaging to another’s reputation), it is presumed to be intentional and wrongful.  That puts the onus on you to prove justification via one of the legal defences - such as ‘mistake”, “lack of intention”, “consent”, “fair comment”, “truth and public benefit”, or “privilege”.

For example in a recent High Court case, the defence of “qualified privilege” recently came to the (partial) rescue of a plot owner in a housing estate.  Following a surge of crime in the estate, he wrote an open letter to other Home Owners Association members accusing the security company contracted to the estate (and its managing director) of providing a "totally unacceptable service" and of having an "alarmingly dismissive service delivery attitude".

The letter was found to be both defamatory (“calculated to injure a trading corporation in its business reputation”), and “not altogether fair” - but still privileged.  To be protected by privilege, a publication must be made “in the discharge of a duty or the protection of a legitimate interest to another person who has a similar duty or interest to receive it”.  Tests of relevance, reasonableness and public policy apply here, and the defence fails if the publication was made with “malice” i.e. with spite, ill-will or any improper motive.

Where the sender of the letter in this case went too far, was in referring to the managing director as an "ineffectual imbecile" – that, held the Court, went beyond mere “meaningless abuse” and amounted to the sort of “insulting invective” that should not enjoy protection.  The MD was duly awarded his damages for that part of the letter.

Our law of defamation is complex – and riddled with grey areas – so seek advice in doubt!