A doctor who communicates concerns about another doctor's patient care to hospital administrators, relevant committees, and affected patients may attract common law qualified privilege, but copying such communications to professional bodies or insurers whose interest relates to a separate contractual dispute will not attract such privilege. The assessment of a publisher's state of mind for the purpose of determining malice is pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge who heard the evidence, and an appellate court will not disturb such findings unless they are inconsistent with incontrovertible facts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.