## Facts

- Watt served as managing director of a British oil company’s operations in Casablanca, Morocco.
- Browne, the company’s foreign manager in Casablanca, sent Longsdon (a director in England) a letter accusing Watt of serious misconduct, including immorality, drunkenness, and dishonesty.
- Longsdon showed Browne’s letter to Singer, the company’s chairman.
- Longsdon replied to Browne, expressing suspicion about Watt and requesting sworn statements; the reply included language that could be read as endorsing the accusations and suggesting questionable means of obtaining evidence.
- Before receiving sworn statements, Longsdon showed Browne’s letter to Watt’s wife; she separated from Watt and later sought divorce.
- Watt sued Longsdon for libel based on three publications: (1) to the chairman, (2) Longsdon’s reply to Browne, and (3) disclosure to Watt’s wife.
- The trial court entered judgment for Longsdon, finding qualified privilege and no evidence of malice.
- Watt appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether each of the three communications occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege based on duty/interest and reciprocity between publisher and recipient.
2. Whether there was evidence from which a jury could find express malice sufficient to defeat any qualified privilege.
3. Whether a spouse’s obvious interest in allegations about marital conduct, without more, makes a disclosure privileged.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded in part.
- Publication to the chairman was on a privileged occasion because company leadership shared a common interest and corresponding duty regarding the conduct of a senior officer.
- The reply letter to Browne was capable of being privileged as part of investigating serious allegations affecting the company, but whether privilege was defeated (including by malice or excess) was for the jury.
- Publication to Watt’s wife was not on a privileged occasion as a matter of law because Longsdon had no sufficient legal, moral, or social duty (or relevant protective interest) to communicate the allegations to her at that stage.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified privilege applies when the publisher has a duty or interest in making the statement and the recipient has a corresponding duty or interest in receiving it.
- The recipient’s interest alone does not create privilege; the publisher must also show a relevant duty or interest to communicate to that recipient.
- Privilege is lost if the communication exceeds the limits of the duty/interest or is made with express malice (abuse of the occasion).
- Intra-corporate communications about alleged misconduct of company personnel may fall within “common interest” privilege when made for company purposes.
- Disclosure of defamatory allegations to a spouse is not privileged absent a recognized duty or interest on the publisher’s part to make that disclosure.

## Conclusion

The court held that qualified privilege can protect company-related communications made within a reciprocal duty/interest relationship, but it does not automatically protect disclosure to a spouse merely because the spouse has a personal interest; any privilege remains defeasible by proof of malice or misuse of the privileged occasion.


Watt v. Longsdon, [1930] 1 K.B. 130 (C.A.)