A media publisher's derivative qualified privilege to publish a person's response to a public attack is lost where the publication endorses the response as to be believed in preference to the attack, rather than merely reporting the response. The Kennett doctrine (that a riposte to a response is not privileged) requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the earlier publication constituted an attack, and purely factual reporting of court proceedings will not suffice. The limits of the Kennett doctrine remain unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.