Discussion
In the distant past I recall a friend being found guilty of defamation just via what he said in response to something - even though what he said was actually correct. It was quite a big case and tomorrow I'll be able to find the x vs. y details if it helps. Even via my hazy recollection I remember the only winners were the lawyers.
Petrus1983 said:
In the distant past I recall a friend being found guilty of defamation just via what he said in response to something - even though what he said was actually correct.
I'm not sure about the OPs question (although it seems unlikely that it would be defamation in either of his scenarios) but I'm pretty sure that proving the statement in question to be true has always been a complete defence to a defamation case.So, you think Dave is a t
t.
And you sent a latter to Dave's lawyer saying 'Dave's a tt'.
And now your wondering if you can be done for defaming Dave go his lawyer.
My guess is that it would depend if the letter is sent to him in his role as Dave's lawyer, or if you've sent it to him as a separate entity. If you see what I mean.
t.And you sent a latter to Dave's lawyer saying 'Dave's a t
t'.And now your wondering if you can be done for defaming Dave go his lawyer.
My guess is that it would depend if the letter is sent to him in his role as Dave's lawyer, or if you've sent it to him as a separate entity. If you see what I mean.
Almost all replies above incorrect, but I daren't tell you why for fear of offending the local expert by omitting to cite every case ever decided on the law of libel. You will have to wait for Zeeky to get to the bit of the GCSE law course that covers defamation before you can get a steer.
PS: JasandJules is a real lawyer, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he is, as I understand it, as yet relatively inexperienced (my apols if I am wrong on this), and I don't think that libel is his field (again, apols if mistaken). Libel is one of those odd areas in which the law as it appears in the books or on Google is not quite the same in real life. A more general observation: academic law has very little connection with law in action. The concerns of academic lawyers are far from those of lawyers who actually have to advise people with real problems. I say this on the basis of keeping half a toe in the academic world.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th June 10:40
Breadvan72 said:
Almost all replies above incorrect, but I daren't tell you why for fear of offending the local expert by omitting to cite every case ever decided on the law of libel. You will have to wait for Zeeky to get to the bit of the GCSE law course that covers defamation before you can get a steer.
BV, may I offer you a small piece of advice that has helped me immeasurably.It's rule #2.
It says that if someone has consistently proven themselves to be antaginistic, argumentative and that any sort of discussion with them is guaranteed to lead to a frustrating argument, then don't read or reply to anything they write.
Just ignore them totally.
I find it works very well and has insulated me from the worst members of several forums over the years.
Even if such people quote and misrepresent you, still ignore them.
People in general have enough intelligence to see who is posting polite opinion and who is being a troll.
You're a grown up with a Land Rover, you can take or leave my advice.
But, it's a rule that's worked well for me.
PS: Defamation requires publication by the alleged defamer to a third party. If A sends a letter to B accusing B of goat bothering, and B sends it to C, A is not liable to B for that. The goat can take his own legal advice, as I never advise people that taste good when curried.
Communications between parties and their legal reps in the course of a dispute or an attempt to settle that dispute attract qualified privilege. JandJ is close but slightly off target in referring to the without prejudice rule, as the abuse of a WP communication to make a malicious publication would expose the publisher to liability, so a slagging off within WP discussion won't always be shielded from liability. Malice would also bust the defence of qualified privilege.
The suggestion above that someone wrote something true but was still liable for defamation cannot be correct. Truth is an absolute defence. Liability for saying something true might arise from of a breach of confidence, in some circumstances, but not in the law of defamation. Confidence and iniquity are separate subjects not addressed here.
No one is found guilty of libel anymore. It is now purely a civil matter. Criminal libel has been abolished.
Defamation is not everyday law. Not many lawyers do defamation cases. There is no substitute for taking fact and context specific advice from a qualified and inured expert.
Someone may be along in a minute to tell you all that I am wrong. I wonder how many actual defamation cases he has done, featuring actual clients and actual exposure to getting it wrong in real life. Me? A couple of dozen, so not lots. My media lawyer stuff started with Spycatcher in the 1980s, and late night libel spotting work at the Observer in the 90s, and has puttered on ever since, although it's not my main thing, so I probably know nowt.
Communications between parties and their legal reps in the course of a dispute or an attempt to settle that dispute attract qualified privilege. JandJ is close but slightly off target in referring to the without prejudice rule, as the abuse of a WP communication to make a malicious publication would expose the publisher to liability, so a slagging off within WP discussion won't always be shielded from liability. Malice would also bust the defence of qualified privilege.
The suggestion above that someone wrote something true but was still liable for defamation cannot be correct. Truth is an absolute defence. Liability for saying something true might arise from of a breach of confidence, in some circumstances, but not in the law of defamation. Confidence and iniquity are separate subjects not addressed here.
No one is found guilty of libel anymore. It is now purely a civil matter. Criminal libel has been abolished.
Defamation is not everyday law. Not many lawyers do defamation cases. There is no substitute for taking fact and context specific advice from a qualified and inured expert.
Someone may be along in a minute to tell you all that I am wrong. I wonder how many actual defamation cases he has done, featuring actual clients and actual exposure to getting it wrong in real life. Me? A couple of dozen, so not lots. My media lawyer stuff started with Spycatcher in the 1980s, and late night libel spotting work at the Observer in the 90s, and has puttered on ever since, although it's not my main thing, so I probably know nowt.
Breadvan72 said:
PS: JasandJules is a real lawyer, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he is, as I understand it, as yet relatively inexperienced (my apols if I am wrong on this), and I don't think that libel is his field (again, apols if mistaken).
Correct on both counts. Law is a second career for me and libel is not my field, thankfully.You can say what you like to the company's lawyers, as even without QP no financial harm will be done to the company by you slagging it off to its own lawyers. A company must prove financial harm if it is to sue for defamation and win.
If you have in mind to cause the company harm by slagging it off more widely, be careful. That way malice may lie. To be wrong by mistake is sometimes but by no means always OK. To be wrong when you mean to cause harm is to risk liability.
The lawyers are warning you off from slagging in public, not from saying nasty things to them about their client.
PS: one reason why you find the law inefficient may be because you do not take advice from a decent lawyer and instead try to do things yourself with a bit of freebie internet help. People who are vocal about how bad the legal system is are sometimes those who have used bad lawyers or no lawyers. People would say that medicine must be rubbish if they always tried to do surgery on themselves or got some junior paramedic to do it for them.
When I used to climb, I used a professional mountain guide. British climbers generally slag off guides and climb unguided. When the weather crapped out on the Dru or the Verte, unguided climbers would try to badger my guide (whose skills I was expensively buying) for free tips, and would try to dog our tracks in the snow, but we always moved faster than they could, and would be home dry and safe while they struggled wet and maybe in danger on the hill. (And, yes, my guide would always rescue someone who was really in a bad spot, and would freely counsel those heading into danger not to.)
If you have in mind to cause the company harm by slagging it off more widely, be careful. That way malice may lie. To be wrong by mistake is sometimes but by no means always OK. To be wrong when you mean to cause harm is to risk liability.
The lawyers are warning you off from slagging in public, not from saying nasty things to them about their client.
PS: one reason why you find the law inefficient may be because you do not take advice from a decent lawyer and instead try to do things yourself with a bit of freebie internet help. People who are vocal about how bad the legal system is are sometimes those who have used bad lawyers or no lawyers. People would say that medicine must be rubbish if they always tried to do surgery on themselves or got some junior paramedic to do it for them.
When I used to climb, I used a professional mountain guide. British climbers generally slag off guides and climb unguided. When the weather crapped out on the Dru or the Verte, unguided climbers would try to badger my guide (whose skills I was expensively buying) for free tips, and would try to dog our tracks in the snow, but we always moved faster than they could, and would be home dry and safe while they struggled wet and maybe in danger on the hill. (And, yes, my guide would always rescue someone who was really in a bad spot, and would freely counsel those heading into danger not to.)
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th June 12:41
Breadvan72 said:
Truth is an absolute defence.
Where does the burden of proof lie when truth is used as a defence nowadays (since the reforms last year)? Is it up to the defendant to prove that chiropody can't cure an ear infection if he makes that assertion, or the chiropractor that sues over it to prove that it can?My interest is soley that of someone that followed the Singh case in the media.
The Singh case has led to new statutory defences for public interest publications and for peer reviewed academic stuff. If truth is pleaded, the burden of proving truth will still lie on the defendant, but in a Singh style case the defendant would probably major on section 4 and maybe sections 3 and/or 6 as well.
I am proud to say that the new Act was partly drafted and was promoted in Parliament by a colleague in chambers who has long been an ardent defender of free speech.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/conten...
I am proud to say that the new Act was partly drafted and was promoted in Parliament by a colleague in chambers who has long been an ardent defender of free speech.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/conten...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You've been lucky. In 20 years as a journo, I've had quite a few legal issues. One which did cost about 10k to charity when I libelled a very understanding man. It was my fault (but wasn't) as it was third party agency copy I used so they covered the cost. I should have known better, the man I defamed knew I should have inown better as he had been libelled before about the subject. He was really good about it and wanted 10k to go to charity, not even a public apology. Then there was the alleged contempt of court.....but that's another tale.If you have company lawyers can you not ask them about this on the QT? Also, and I have never used their services, if you are in the NUJ? I think they have lawyers you can speak to.
No help to you, but I remember an old hack telling me that if a letter like the one you got was short and to the point then they meant business. If it was long and full off threat after threat, then they were merely trying to frighten.
Good luck mate.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff