139ADefence of qualified privilege for provision of certain

139A Defence of qualified privilege for provision of certain information (1) There is a defence of qualified privilege for the publication of defamatory matter to a person (the recipient) if the defendant proves that— (a) the recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject; and (b) the matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving to the recipient information on that subject; and (c) the conduct of the defendant in publishing that matter is reasonable in the circumstances. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a recipient has an apparent interest in having information on some subject if, and only if, at the time of the publication in question, the defendant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the recipient has that interest. (3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the conduct of the defendant in publishing matter about a person is reasonable in the circumstances, a court may take into account the following factors to the extent the court considers them applicable in the circumstances: (a) the seriousness of any defamatory imputation carried by the matter published; (b) the extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions, allegations and proven facts; (c) the nature of the business environment in which the defendant operates; (d) whether it was appropriate in the circumstances for the matter to be published expeditiously; (e) any other steps taken to verify the information in the matter (3A) Subsection (3) does not— (a) require each factor mentioned in the subsection to be taken into account; or (b) limit the matters that the court may take into account. (3B) It is not necessary to prove that the matter published concerned an issue of public interest to establish the defence of qualified privilege under subsection (1). (4) For the avoidance of doubt, a defence of qualified privilege under subsection (1) is defeated if the plaintiff proves that the publication of the defamatory matter was actuated by malice. (5) However, a defence of qualified privilege under subsection (1) is not defeated merely because the defamatory matter was published for reward. 139AB Defence of scientific or academic peer review (a) the matter was published in a scientific or academic journal (whether published in electronic form or otherwise); and (b) the matter relates to a scientific or academic issue; and (c) an independent review of the matter’s scientific or academic merit was carried out before the matter was published in the journal by— (i) the editor of the journal if the editor has expertise in the scientific or academic issue concerned; or (ii) 1 or more people with expertise in the scientific or academic issue concerned. (2) If there is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter in a scientific or academic journal because of subsection (1), there is also a defence to the publication of any assessment of the matter in the same journal if the defendant proves that— (a) the assessment was written by 1 or more of the people who carried out the independent review of the matter; and (b) the assessment was written in the course of that review. (3) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the matter was contained in a fair summary of, or fair extract from, a matter or assessment for which there is a defence because of subsection (1) or (2). (4) If a journal has more than 1 editor, a reference in this section to the editor of the journal is to be read as a reference to the editor or editors who were responsible for deciding to publish the matter concerned. (5) A defence established under this section is defeated if, and only if, the plaintiff proves that the defamatory matter or assessment was not published honestly for the information of the public or the advancement of education.