1. Whether Prince Drama and Virushka Middletown can successfully sue Mr.

Chuckling Chandler and Entourage Magazine for defamation?

Statement is a fair comment:
The defense of a fair comment is widely recognized in common law. It stems from the belief
that honest and fair criticism is an indispensable part of a freedom-loving society.1 In this case
Mr. Chandler’s article in Entourage Magazine is being alleged to be defamatory in nature.
However, arguments may be advanced for and against the validity of the statement to be
treated as a fair comment under, Public Interest [3.1]; the comment must be an expression
and opinion of a true fact [3.2]; Fairness [3.3], Absence of malice [3.4].2

3.1 Public Interest:

It can be argued the publication is a matter of public interest. As stated in
London Artists Ltd. v. Littler3 whenever a matter is such to affect people at
large or they may be legitimately interested in or concerned at it is a matter
of public interest and everyone is entitled to fair comment. In this case Mr.
Chandler before publishing knew as a matter of fact that it was important that
he warns people from undertaking loss making ventures in a slowing
economy. Apart from this, he also thought that a lot of people would want to
know this piece of gossip. Therefore, the part of the publication that is
pertinent to the above-mentioned arguments do not amount to defamation.
However, it was also noticed in London Artists Ltd. v. Littler4,that though the
comment was made in public interest however the inability of the defendant
to substantiate the fact on which the comment was made, defense of public
interest was not provided.

3.2 Comment on a true fact:

The comment made should be based upon a true fact except of the exception
that a comment on a statement of fact not proved to be true but which is
itself covered under privilege.5 Otherwise, it would amount to an allegation

1
Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort law, p-785 (6th edition)
2
Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort law, p-786-790 (6th edition)
3
London Artists Ltd. v. Littler, [1969] 2 QB 375,391
4
ibid
5
Brazier,M & Murphy,J The law of torts, p-480 (10th edition)
 of the fact, and the defense of fair comment would be struck out.6 However,
if justification is pleaded the defense is also available. In fair comment it is not
necessary to prove the truth of the comment but merely that the opinion was
honestly held.7 A fact may be truly stated and may yet be utterly untrue.8 As
held in Sutherland v Stopes9, a comment based on facts correctly stated may
be fair event though are incorrect. In this case Mr. Chandler published the
article on the facts which he honestly believed to be true as stated by Mr.
Scientist Geller.

3.3 Fairness:
The word ‘fair’ embraces the meaning of honest and relevance.10 Here, some
parts of Mr. Chandler’s comments pertinent to the news provided by Mr.
Geller is explicitly a fair comment, the exaggeration thereon is ambiguous to
be defamatory. However, as stated in Merivale v. Carson11, mere
exaggeration or even gross exaggeration would not make the comment
unfair.

3.4 Absence of Malice:

In the context of qualified privilege malice is something that means some
improper motive for making that statement and is often established that the
statement that was made is itself not believed to be true12. However, the
defendant if believes that the statements are true there is no malice even if
the person is pursuing his own private objectives.13 In this case Mr. Chandler
even though had the public interest later however initially wanted to
capitalize on the gossip through the columns of Entourage Magazine.

6
Ramaswamy Iyer’s The law of Torts, p-434 (10th edition)
7
Supra, note-5
8
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on torts, p-260 (10th edition)
9
Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47, pp63,75
10
Supra Note 8
11
Merivale v. Carson, (1887) 20 QBD 275
12
Winfield & Jolowicz on tort, p- 559 (15th edition, 1998)
13
Cheng v Tse Wai Chum,[2000] 3