The plaintiffs, a genetic testing company and its director, sued the defendants for defamation over a magazine article criticizing their non-invasive prenatal paternity test.
The article alleged the test was dangerous, unreliable, and prone to error.
The court found the article was defamatory but dismissed the action, holding that the defendants successfully established the defences of justification, qualified privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication.
The court found the plaintiffs failed to properly validate their test according to accepted scientific methodology, rendering the test unreliable and the article's claims substantially true.
