## Facts

- The case concerned a defamation claim brought by Toogood against Spyring.
- Spyring made an allegedly defamatory statement about Toogood in the context of Toogood’s employment.
- The statement was communicated as part of Spyring’s discharge of a duty.
- There was no evidence that Spyring acted with malice when making the statement.
- The dispute centered on whether the statement was protected by qualified privilege.

## Issues

1. Whether the statement made by Spyring about Toogood was protected by qualified privilege.
2. Whether the absence of malice was established in the circumstances.
3. Under what conditions qualified privilege applies as a defence to defamation.
4. How qualified privilege differs from absolute privilege in scope and application.

## Decision

- The court held that the statement was protected by qualified privilege as it was made in the discharge of a duty and without malice.
- Qualified privilege was found to apply where a statement is made in good faith, in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty, to a recipient with a corresponding interest.
- The absence of malice preserved the defence; if malice had been proven, qualified privilege would have been defeated.
- The ruling distinguished qualified privilege from absolute privilege, emphasizing the conditional nature of the former.
- The case established that qualified privilege facilitates necessary communication while safeguarding against abuse.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified privilege arises when a statement is made pursuant to a legal, moral, or social duty, to a person with a corresponding interest in receiving the information.
- The defence of qualified privilege is defeated if malice is present; malice includes improper motives such as ill will or intent to cause harm.
- Absolute privilege applies only in limited circumstances (e.g., judicial or parliamentary proceedings) and is not defeated by malice.
- The context, duty, and intent behind the communication are central to determining protection under qualified privilege.
- The principles established in this case continue to inform the scope of qualified privilege, including in employment references and public interest disclosures.

## Conclusion

Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 CM & R 181 established the foundational criteria for qualified privilege in defamation law, confirming that statements made in the discharge of a duty and without malice are protected, subject to the relationship and interests of the communicating parties.
