The question whether qualified privilege will protect a reference to the character of someone only indirectly concerned in the matters raised in the report will depend on its relevancy and the circumstances in which it was made. Certainly, if the references to the third party are irrelevant or no investigation has been conducted into the third party, privilege is unlikely to attach to this part of the report and that person would have a right of action against the author. Fifth, avoid excessive or unnecessary publication. Employees should not have access to investigatory reports unless it is strictly necessary for the discharge of their duties. The report should be communicated by a suitably private method, such as sealed envelope marked for the attention of the recipient only.
Open memoranda are clearly unsuitable.
Email is likely to be treated in the same way as sealed correspondence, although account must be taken of who has access to an individual's mailbox. Publication to a third person with no interest or duty will still be protected if reasonable and in the ordinary course of business. For example, privilege is unlikely to be lost where the report is dictated to and typed by a secretary. The aim of the courts is not to prevent an organisation and the people who work for it from ever making adverse comments about employees but to stop unwarranted criticism from damaging an individual's career or reputation. It is, however, good to remember that the difficult employee who is most likely to be the subject of a critical internal report is also likely to react strongly to it.