| 词条 | Vickery v McLean |
| 释义 |
| name = Vickery v McLean | court = Court of Appeal of New Zealand | date_filed = | image = Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg | date decided = 07 November 2000 | full name = Ross Harold Vickery v Thomas McLean, Christopher John Smale, and Geoffrey Keith Phillips | citations = [2006] NZAR 481 | judges = Gault J, Thomas J, Keith J, Blanchard J, Tipping | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = Court of Appeal judgment | Keywords = negligence }}Vickery v McLean [2006] NZAR 481 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding claims in defamation and the defence of free speech.[1] BackgroundHarold Vickery was concerned that there may have been criminal activity at the Papakura District Council when it contracted out its water services, so much so that he had lodged complaints with both the Ombudsman Office and the Serious Fraud Office. Vickery then sent The New Zealand Herald a letter claiming that "there was serious enough circumstantial evidence to suggest criminal irregularity may have taken place" at the PDC by these council employees, who were not elected council officials. The Council employees in reply sued Vickery for defamation, and he used the claim of qualified privilege as a defence, as outlined in Lange. HeldThe Court of Appeal limited the defence of qualified privilege, as outlined in Lange, to elected officials, such as councillors, MPs, and mayors, and not to unelected public officials, as were the plaintiffs here. Thus Vickery's defamation defence was dismissed. References1. ^{{cite book |title=Butterworths Student Companion Torts |edition=6th |last1=McLay |first1=Geoff |publisher=LexisNexis |ISBN=9781877511400|year=2010 |page=}} {{NewZealand-case-law-stub}} 4 : Court of Appeal of New Zealand cases|New Zealand tort case law|2006 in New Zealand law|2006 in case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。