Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 CM & R 181

Facts

  • The case concerned a defamation claim brought by Toogood against Spyring.
  • Spyring made an allegedly defamatory statement about Toogood in the context of Toogood’s employment.
  • The statement was communicated as part of Spyring’s discharge of a duty.
  • There was no evidence that Spyring acted with malice when making the statement.
  • The dispute centered on whether the statement was protected by qualified privilege.

Issues

  1. Whether the statement made by Spyring about Toogood was protected by qualified privilege.
  2. Whether the absence of malice was established in the circumstances.
  3. Under what conditions qualified privilege applies as a defence to defamation.
  4. How qualified privilege differs from absolute privilege in scope and application.

Decision

  • The court held that the statement was protected by qualified privilege as it was made in the discharge of a duty and without malice.
  • Qualified privilege was found to apply where a statement is made in good faith, in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty, to a recipient with a corresponding interest.
  • The absence of malice preserved the defence; if malice had been proven, qualified privilege would have been defeated.
  • The ruling distinguished qualified privilege from absolute privilege, emphasizing the conditional nature of the former.
  • The case established that qualified privilege facilitates necessary communication while safeguarding against abuse.

Legal Principles

  • Qualified privilege arises when a statement is made pursuant to a legal, moral, or social duty, to a person with a corresponding interest in receiving the information.
  • The defence of qualified privilege is defeated if malice is present; malice includes improper motives such as ill will or intent to cause harm.
  • Absolute privilege applies only in limited circumstances (e.g., judicial or parliamentary proceedings) and is not defeated by malice.
  • The context, duty, and intent behind the communication are central to determining protection under qualified privilege.
  • The principles established in this case continue to inform the scope of qualified privilege, including in employment references and public interest disclosures.

Conclusion

Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 CM & R 181 established the foundational criteria for qualified privilege in defamation law, confirming that statements made in the discharge of a duty and without malice are protected, subject to the relationship and interests of the communicating parties.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal