## Facts

- Mr. Horrocks and Mr. Lowe were both members of a local council in Bolton, England.
- The dispute arose after Mr. Lowe, during a council meeting, accused Mr. Horrocks of misconduct and dishonesty relating to a planning application.
- Mr. Horrocks sued Mr. Lowe for defamation, alleging the statements were false and made maliciously.
- At trial, a jury found Mr. Lowe acted with malice; judgment was entered for Mr. Horrocks.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision.
- The House of Lords reversed the decision, holding that Mr. Lowe’s statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and that malice was not sufficiently established to defeat the defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the statements made by Mr. Lowe during the council meeting were protected by qualified privilege.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence of malice to defeat the defense of qualified privilege.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the occasion was one of qualified privilege, as Mr. Lowe had a duty to communicate and the recipients had an interest in the information.
- It was determined that malice, which would defeat qualified privilege, requires proof of improper motive or reckless disregard for the truth.
- The court found no evidence that Mr. Lowe bore personal animosity or acted with reckless indifference to the truth.
- The defense of qualified privilege was upheld as there was no proof that Mr. Lowe lacked an honest belief in the truth of his statements.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified privilege applies where communications are made in the discharge of a legal, social, or moral duty to persons with a corresponding interest in receiving the information.
- The defense of qualified privilege is lost if the claimant proves malice, defined as an improper motive (such as spite) or reckless disregard for the truth.
- The burden of proving malice lies with the claimant and must focus on the subjective state of mind of the defendant at the time of publication.
- Mere mistake or inaccuracy does not amount to malice unless there is an absence of honest belief in the truth of the statement.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified that qualified privilege in defamation can only be defeated by clear proof of malice—either improper motive or reckless disregard for the truth—and since such malice was not established in this case, the defense succeeded.


Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135