Who can be told about a libel action?

Stargal

Hypothetical question: If a solicitor's letter is served threatening libel action, can the people who received the letter tell people about it? Are there any restrictions?

Lplated

Hypothetical answer - Why wouldn't the reciever be able to tell people? At a minimum, the receiver would need to instruct his own solicitor.

Reading between the lines - say I allegedly said X about someone (call him Stan). Stan goes to his solicitor, who tells stan that what I said was slanderous (i.e. defamatory), and writes me a letter threatening action. There isn't anything to prevent me telling anybody about the letter, BUT, just on the offchance that what I originally said (i.e. X concerning Stan) was slanderous, it might be wise on my part not to repeat X.

The question is intriguing, perhaps you might expand on the hypothetical situation??

dermot_sheehan

stargal wrote:

Hypothetical question: If a solicitor's letter is served threatening libel action, can the people who received the letter tell people about it? Are there any restrictions?

Hypothetical answer:

3 possible problems, first is the fact that I'm sure the letter restates the things that were hypothetically libellous in the first place. To republish would be compounding the libel and would result in more damages if the allegations are found libellous at trial.

Secondly: If you reproduce the letter, you could violate the copyright holder's copyright in the letter (I'm not sure of any case law on this, but I know one major American firm that when sending out letters of this type declares them to be copyrighted and that reproduction is not authorised). I'm not sure of anyone having gone to court though and winning for breach of copyright in this scenario. Question of whether it's a "literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work,", if not only the typographical arrangements are protected, and even if protected the s.50 exemption for fair dealing might come into play http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S50.html or the s.51(2) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S51.html

Thirdly an action could lie for breach of confidence. The test for confidence, as recently restated in the Douglas v. Hello case is :

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.the information had the necessary quality of confidence about it; [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2.the information was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3.publication of the information was detrimental to the claimant.[/FONT]


I'm not sure if this would be satisfied in the letter, and in any case there is a public interest defence to breach of confidence actions.

Stargal

Thanks for the 'hypothetical' advice

Without giving too much away, and in response to Lplated:

I write for a newspaper in college, which has a quotes-of-the-week section in each issue. In the last edition in April, we attributed a quote to a student in college; we gave the quote, and then we said something like, "joe bloggs was accused of making this comment on [insert place and date]. He denies the allegation". We received a letter this morning from solicitors threatening libel action unless we apologised*.

I don't plan on reiterating the libellous claim to anyone. Does that mean I'm free to talk to whoever I want about this? And although this may be a sticky area, what about posting a thread in my college's forum on boards saying 'joe bloggs has threatened legal action against the paper, what do you lot think' or something like that?

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, this is the first time I've ever encountered anything like this.

*NB Mods: I'm not looking for advice on the specifics of this. More a general 'what can and can't you do'.

dermot_sheehan

stargal wrote:

Thanks for the 'hypothetical' advice

Without giving too much away, and in response to Lplated:

I write for a newspaper in college, which has a quotes-of-the-week section in each issue. In the last edition in April, we attributed a quote to a student in college; we gave the quote, and then we said something like, "joe bloggs was accused of making this comment on [insert place and date]. He denies the allegation". We received a letter this morning from solicitors threatening libel action unless we apologised*.

I don't plan on reiterating the libellous claim to anyone. Does that mean I'm free to talk to whoever I want about this? And although this may be a sticky area, what about posting a thread in my college's forum on boards saying 'joe bloggs has threatened legal action against the paper, what do you lot think' or something like that?

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, this is the first time I've ever encountered anything like this.

*NB Mods: I'm not looking for advice on the specifics of this. More a general 'what can and can't you do'.

Then hypothetically, this hypothetical newspaper (which we shall call TN for convenience) would only have to worry about a breach of confidence, which I've never heard of any actions for in this scenerio (e.g. mostly involves employees divulging trade secrets, or someone publishing someone else's correspondence), I'm not even sure it would apply in this circumstances as there needs to be a relationship involving an obligation of confidence (i.e. doctor patient, employer-employee.) I raised more as a theoretical question I seriously doubt in this hpyothetical circumstance an action for breach of confidence would succeed.

maidhc

To say "I recieved a solicitors letter from x threatening legal action" cannot be reagarded as anything other than stating the blindingly obvious. Republishing the letter in Pirate Bay style could indeed give rise to aggravated damages

I can't see how the Breach of Confidence action would succeed. Aside from a few commercial cases it has hardly ever even been used in this jurisdiction. Besides I don't see how a threat of legal proceedings could be regarded as having the necessary quality of confidence since they have to become a matter of public record.

Crash

Hypothetically, how many witnesses would be required to prove that such a statement had occured?

Thirdfox

lol I've heard of this "hypothetical" case (from both sides might I add )

reserve judgment on who's right or wrong - do tell me if this "hypothetical" case ends up in "hypothetical" court though, I'd like to see it... hypothetically of course

Crash: I think the number of witnesses needed would be the number needed to convince the jury that the statement had happened a.k.a. how long is a piece of string?

Time Magazine

Hypothetically if the letter accuses "Trinity News" (the convenient hypothetical name of this paper) of libel, and the publication is found to have made the statement in good faith etc., could the solicitor's letter be found to be libellous if published by Trinity News?!

dermot_sheehan

"Good faith" is not a defence to libel though it may reduce damages. Libel is a tort of strict liability.

Thirdfox

might be able to use qualified privilege... as long as there's no malice (which is debatable in this case...)

Stargal

That's the thing; although it may not have been libel, reprinting the comment may have compounded libel, as it may have damaged the reputation of the person who said it (although perhaps he just shouldn't have made the comment in the first place!)

The paper is currently collecting statements from people who heard the person make the comment and waiting to hear back from the solicitor of 'The Person'.

Thirdfox

Republishing where? On the boards.ie? The mods of TCD might not like that... I think the main problem is that you've published the last edition of the paper for this year and can't publish an apology (if that is what you wanted to do...)

Witnesses... I'm sure 'The Person' will have witnesses of his own too.

Anyway remember to keep us informed if the hypothetical case ends up in court!

Oh, what action does the Person's solicitor demand be taken? Apology/damages/injunction(?) ?

Angry Banana wrote:

Hypothetically if the letter accuses "Trinity News" (the convenient hypothetical name of this paper) of libel, and the publication is found to have made the statement in good faith etc., could the solicitor's letter be found to be libellous if published by Trinity News?!

As in can TN libel itself? No... e.g. if I write a letter calling you a * (insert libellous material) - this isn't defamation as you're the recipient... if you then tell other people that I wrote a letter calling you a * I still haven't libelled you (I think!) Since a court would find that you consented to republication of the defamatory material.

Stargal

Sorry, I think you may have picked me up wrongly there; When I said, "[R]eprinting the comment may have compounded libel", I was referring to when it was published in the paper originally, rather than any (misguided!) plans to repeat the comment!

The letter from The Person's solicitor asked for the apology to be printed in the next edition of the paper. This will be in October. I'm sure The Person is aware of when the next edition of the paper is, but that is what was asked for.

Also I'd imagine it's very difficult to find witnesses (other than your best friends!) to say that they didn't hear you say something you were accused of saying.

Stargal

Thirdfox wrote:

Oh, what action does the Person's solicitor demand be taken? Apology/damages/injunction(?)

It asks for an unreserved apology to be published in a prominent position in the next edition of the paper and provisions to be made for adequate redress.

Thirdfox

stargal wrote:

Sorry, I think you may have picked me up wrongly there; When I said, "[R]eprinting the comment may have compounded libel", I was referring to when it was published in the paper originally, rather than any (misguided!) plans to repeat the comment!

I think (as was said before) it would depend on how you phrase the pending action e.g.:

I got a letter from X = not libellous at all
I got a letter from that *$%"$ X saying that the comment XYZ = probably aggravates the situation.


Not to make light of the situation but I remember the case (McGarth v. Independent Newspapers) where an apology was published (including a photo of the person (businessman) defamed)... but beside the photo was the headline "Businessman linked to terrorism" - needless to say, the newspaper got sued again

Comhra....

Wow, hypothetically, this is all very exciting. But I do have a question;
if the hypothetical newspaper simply printed a phrase that "a person" said that "The Person" had said allegedly. Then, hypothetically, could "The Person" seek legal action against "a person"? Considering that is was "a person" who gave the "libelous material" to the hypothetical newspaper.

Stargal

Wow, hypothetically, this is all very exciting. But I do have a question;
if the hypothetical newspaper simply printed a phrase that "a person" said that "The Person" had said allegedly. Then, hypothetically, could "The Person" seek legal action against "a person"? Considering that is was "a person" who gave the "libelous material" to the hypothetical newspaper.

Obv I'm not a legal expert or anything but I'd guess that because the paper printed the allegations, the legal action would be taken against them, especially as in this case, the article didn't name the person who made the allegation against The Person.

Thirdfox

Comhra wrote:

Wow, hypothetically, this is all very exciting. But I do have a question;
if the hypothetical newspaper simply printed a phrase that "a person" said that "The Person" had said allegedly. Then, hypothetically, could "The Person" seek legal action against "a person"? Considering that is was "a person" who gave the "libelous material" to the hypothetical newspaper.

Both parties i.e. "a person" and the newspaper could be liable. But "The person" would sue the newspaper as they (normally) have more money.

Newspaper would be more than willing to reveal sources I suppose if that meant they didn't incur huge damages awarded against them (depending on the allegations e.g. padeophilia accusations = huge damages). If they don't reveal, all costs will definitely fall on them.

Thirdfox

So Stargal, how did the hypothetical case pan out for all parties concerned? I hope everyone reached an amicable agreement...

Crash

I think Mr. A* isn't talking to me anymore... oh well (Hypothetically.)


*(EDIT: in light of current situations, i probably could have chosen a better psuedonym - can i get done for libel there? )

dermot_sheehan

"Q" perhaps?

Crash

Myself and another person were call him Declan McGuigan - subtle, no?

Andrew 83

Thirdfox wrote:

So Stargal, how did the hypothetical case pan out for all parties concerned? I hope everyone reached an amicable agreement...

In this hypothetical case I believe the individual involved's solicitor never replied to a letter he was sent and failed to return a call to his office at the time so I assume that the potential action was dropped.