The appellants, a medical assessment firm and two of its doctors, sued the respondents for defamation over a television broadcast that criticized their handling of an insurance claim.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the broadcast was protected by the defence of fair comment.
On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge unduly narrowed the defamatory meaning of the broadcast and erred in applying the fair comment defence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the broadcast's meaning was properly contextualized and that the statements were fair comment based on substantially true facts.
