Eppinga v Kalil

• 1. Defamation
  2. › Defences
  3. › Common law qualified privilege
  4. › Reply to attack
  5. › Malice
  6. › Whether publisher knew allegation was false or was wilfully blind to falsity
  7. › Whether appellant discharged burden of proving malice
• 1. Defamation
  2. › Defences
  3. › Common law qualified privilege
  4. › Reply to attack
  5. › Malice
  6. › Relevance of witness credibility findings
  7. › Whether appellate court should disturb credit-based factual findings
• 1. Defamation
  2. › Defences
  3. › Common law qualified privilege
  4. › Reply to attack
  5. › Malice
  6. › Jones v Dunkel inference
  7. › Whether inference available against party not bearing evidential burden
• 1. Defamation
  2. › Defamatory matter
  3. › Capacity to convey pleaded imputations
  4. › Whether ordinary reasonable reader would understand matter as conveying imputations of being 'a thief', 'a racist', 'an abuser of drugs', or 'the subject of a police prosecution'

Quick Take