Defamation for the expert

pirelli

A worker in a huge facility gets annoyed with a worker from another department .The worker MR biggesly big boots loudly states an accusation that the worker is sending threatening emails and to stop.Other people can see the worker and some can see Mr Biggelsy saying this to the workers face and others only hear.The other worker walks away deeply offended he has all the emails on his account and they dont appear in any way threatening.

Can the worker sue Mr Biggesly big boots for defamation and would he/she win or Can Mr biggesly big boots argue that subjectively that he finds them threatening.

fowler100

In order for the worker to sue for the alleged defamatory statement, he must show proof of some special damage or loss as the statement is not in permanent form. If defamatory effect and special damage is proved, then the onus shifts to Biggesly to show justification. This will be judged by a mixed standard, leaning more on objective standards.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote:

Can the worker sue Mr Biggesly big boots for defamation

They are certainly entitled to try.

pirelli wrote:

and would he/she win

It's hard to say, and there are a number of factors. Do you think that the words complained of were such as to lower the reputation of the worker in the eyes of right minded memebers of the public?

pirelli wrote:

or Can Mr biggesly big boots argue that subjectively that he finds them threatening.

He could, if that was genuinely his opinion. But the threats would need to have an air of reality to them.

pirelli

fowler100 wrote:

In order for the worker to sue for the alleged defamatory statement, he must show proof of some special damage or loss as the statement is not in permanent form. If defamatory effect and special damage is proved, then the onus shifts to Biggesly to show justification. This will be judged by a mixed standard, leaning more on objective standards.

Would the worker being a private citizen be under the onus to prove malice and not damages because sending threatening mail generally a criminal offence and the plaintifff would not have to prove damages or malice.?

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote:

They are certainly entitled to try.



It's hard to say, and there are a number of factors. Do you think that the words complained of were such as to lower the reputation of the worker in the eyes of right minded memebers of the public?



He could, if that was genuinely his opinion. But the threats would need to have an air of reality to them.

An air of reality being like bad punctuation and comment's like "be careful to reply quickly " " it is an official request so beware of your answers", "treat this as an official request and answer carefully"
"i want the report in my hand in one hour " " Look, get your priorities straight or else"


Would any of these sentences contain an air of reality if they were in the normal context of day to day work activities.?

Mr Biggesly big boots confronted the worker and said stop harrassing BOB
(which the worker had not been doing ) .Then Mr Biggesly big boots says stop sending threatening emails.

Would This be suffcient to make the threatening emails sound serious enough to be a misdemeanour offence if Mr Biggesly in the same breath is saying that he is also harrassing BOB .?
(A misdemeanor would be a common law offence in the district court.)

Also after the worker complain's to HR if MR Biggelsy then counter complains to HR about the threatening emails and HR dont investigate properly and then support Mr Biggesly big boots and write a very negative report on the worker and state that he has breached the email and computer use policy .

Would the special damages include this aggravation of injury or would MR Biggelsy be immune from any actions HR take on his behalf and would Mr biggesly cause special damages to the worker by counter complaining by accussing the worker of sending threatening emails.?