The defendants appealed a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $1.475 million in damages for a defamatory newspaper article about the plaintiff's proposed golf course expansion.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the emerging defence of public interest responsible journalism by conflating it with qualified privilege and failing to have the jury determine the article's meaning first.
The trial judge also made reversible errors in his jury charge regarding the defence of fair comment, malice, and the presumption of falsity.
