If someone is suing you for defamation and you say your opinion was honest, you don't have to prove more just because your opinion suggested the other person did something wrong or had a bad reason for doing it. You only have to prove what you would normally have to prove. This means you are treated the same as if you hadn't suggested a bad motive.
This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.
View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM281222.
This page was last updated on — View changes
11: Defendant not required to prove truth of every statement of fact, or
"You don't have to prove everything you said is true in a defamation court case."
13: Absolute privilege in relation to proceedings in Parliament, or
"You're safe to talk about what happens in Parliament without being sued."
In any proceedings for defamation in which the defendant relies on a defence of honest opinion, the fact that the matter that is the subject of the proceedings attributes a dishonourable, corrupt, or base motive to the plaintiff does not require the defendant to prove anything that the defendant would not be required to prove if the matter did not attribute any such motive.
