## Facts

- The dispute arose between two parties in the entertainment industry.
- The claimant, Spiller, was a member of a musical group.
- The defendant, Joseph, was a former manager of the group.
- Joseph made statements in a letter to a third party, alleging that Spiller had engaged in unprofessional conduct.
- Spiller brought a defamation claim, arguing the statements were false and harmful to his reputation.
- Joseph asserted the defence of fair comment, contending his statements were opinion based on true facts.
- The trial court found for Joseph, accepting the defence.
- The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, holding the factual basis for the opinion had not been clearly indicated.
- The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the statements made by Joseph constituted defamatory material or were protected as opinion under the fair comment defence.
2. Whether the factual basis for Joseph’s opinion had been sufficiently indicated to the audience.
3. Whether the defence of fair comment could be defeated by allegations of malice in this case.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, reinstating the trial court's judgment in Joseph's favour.
- The Court held that the defence of fair comment was available because the factual basis of the opinion had been sufficiently indicated.
- The factual basis need not be detailed within the statement; it is adequate if the audience can reasonably infer the facts from the context or other sources.
- The Court found no evidence of malice by Joseph.
- The honest expression of opinion is protected provided it is based on true facts and not motivated by improper purpose.

## Legal Principles

- For the fair comment (now honest opinion) defence, the statement must be recognized as opinion, based on facts that are true or substantially true, and made without malice.
- The factual basis for the opinion must be sufficiently indicated to allow the reader or listener to judge the value of the comment.
- The facts that support the opinion do not have to be reiterated in detail, but must be apparent from context or accessible sources.
- Malice can defeat the defence of fair comment if the opinion is not genuinely held or is driven by an improper motive.
- The principles in this case influenced codification in the Defamation Act 2013.

## Conclusion

Spiller v Joseph clarified the requirements for the defence of fair comment in defamation law, particularly the need to indicate the factual basis of an opinion, the role of malice, and the balance between protecting reputation and freedom of expression. The Supreme Court’s judgment remains influential and supports the honest opinion defence now codified in statute.


Spiller v Joseph [2011] 1 AC 852