JUDGMENT
[1] The factual background of the case and the leave questions posed for our determination have been set out by my learned brother Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal FCJ in his judgment. For the purposes of this judgment, I shall leave out the factual background but shall set out the leave questions again, which are as follows:
1. Whether reportage is in law a separate defence from qualified privilege or the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism and whether it is to be treated as being mutually exclusive?
2. Whether the defence of reportage being an off-shoot of the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism needs to be pleaded separately from the plea of responsible journalism itself ?
3. Whether a defendant is obliged to plead either reportage or responsible journalism and not plead them in the alternative?
4. Whether the defence of reportage which is in law based on an ongoing matter of public concern is sufficiently pleaded if it is stated by the defendant that the publications 'were and still are matters of public interest which the defendants were under a duty to publish'?
5. Whether the proper test to determine if the defence of reportage succeeds is the test of adoption by the journalist of the publication as true and not for the journalist to establish his neutrality by independent verification?
6. In publishing video recordings of statements by third parties in a press conference, whether the mere publication of such videos could be held to be an embellishment of the allegations or an embracing or adoption of such statements as the truth by the news media?
7. Whether in an ongoing dispute, the impugned article or videos ought to be considered together with previous and continuing publications of the news media on the same subject matter of public concern in determining the defence of reportage?
8. Whether it is proper to award general damages for loss of goodwill and vindication of reputation to a plaintiff company that has independently been subjected to a voluntary winding up by its creditors?