“It was argued that to rely on the protection of the Act, one who claims the protection must have acted without malice. In other words, if the acts are done maliciously the Act will not afford protection. In the case Newell v. Starkie (1920) PC 89 L.J.R. 1, where a plea of malice was considered as affecting the protection of the English Act, Lord Finlay at page 6 of the report said:- “The second observation which I have to make is that the Act necessarily will not apply if it is established that the defendant had abused his position for the purpose of acting maliciously. In that case he has not been acting within the terms of the statutory or other legal authority. He has not been bonafide endeavouring to carry it out. In such a state of facts he has abused his position for the purpose of doing a wrong, and the protection of this Act, of course, never could apply to such a case.” We are in agreement with the views of the learned Judge that the evidence before the Court provides ample justification that the conductress had acted maliciously and her actions had debarred her from the protection of the Act.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
