Defamation Question

NoQuarter

Just a quick one folks,

Would there be any defence of privilege for false statements said at companies board meetings? Particular example here is a Credit Union. Does the Credit Union act 1997 come into play at all?

Thanks.

coylemj

There might be a defence of qualified privilege, could you give us a sample of this hypothetical defamation?

Reloc8

Depends on lots of things.

Whether there is a genuine belief of it being true although it is objectively incorrect.

Whether it is said with malice.

Whether it is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion.

Whether it is a statement which relates for instance to the business of the Credit Union.

Its far to complicated to advise on reliably on an internet forum and if you suspect you may have defamed someone or may have been defamed go to a solicitor.

NoQuarter

No no you can check out my previous posts, im doing FE1s.

So is the relevant legislation all contained within the Defamation Act?

Scenario in question involved saying someone was a liar in a board meeting. And this statement being false.

The only defence I can see is honest opinion, I was more wondering if there could be any clause in the Credit Union Act which states that anything said in a board meeting is exempt from a defamation claim, as would be the case in a tribunal or a court hearing!

After a scoot through the C.U Act it seems not!

Tom Young

Was a case on this Lonzim v Sprague http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/2838.html

QP will more than likely apply.

If this relates to bonds, etc. Then the issue is more a case of misleading data being given to a Director rather anything else.

Victor

Wouldn't it very much depend on who heard? Saying it at a board meeting with 4 people present presents a very different situation to an AGM with a variety of (many) people present.

Tom Young wrote: »

Was a case on this Lonzim v Sprague http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/2838.html

From paragraph 11.

"betting on a donkey in the Grand National".

Is this merely gross abuse?

Tom Young

Yeah, but the point was actually In respect of the AGM slander claim:

(1) whether or not Plaintiff's case should be confined to the publishees Plaintiffs had been able to identify;

(2) whether or not Plaintiffs had any real prospect of establishing that there had been any other alleged publishees;

(3) whether or not the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process.

Striking out the action as an abuse of process and refusing permission to amend.

As regards the AGM slander claim:

(1) Plaintiffs had no real prospect of identifying any further publication witnesses;

(2) The claim was an abuse of process ("I am at a loss to understand what vindication the Claimants might obtain from the verdict of a court, or why, or on what grounds, this claim in slander is being brought at all" (Judgment, para. 31)).