What is the defence of qualified privilege based on malice?

The defence is therefore based on the circumstances surrounding the statement rather than the statement itself. The presence of malice defeats the defence of qualified privilege, as it does the defence of fair comment (Lawson v. Thompson, supra). I accept that if the Defendant can establish the statements were fairly made in privileged circumstances, the statement is presumed to have been honestly made. The burden of proving malice in order to defeat the defence is on the plaintiff. Since malice defeats a defence of qualified privilege, little would be gained by proceeding to consider whether the defence is established, only to defeat it upon finding malice. I therefore look first to the issue of malice.