Defamation - Private Correspondence

Bold Abdu

Hi there,

I've recently had a gripe with my solicitor about a matter...say Joe Bloggs & Co. In a letter that I emailed to one of Mr Bloggs' employees (Snr Solicitor who was dealing with the case and is named on the headed paper) I accused the firm of misleading and overcharging me in relation to my case.

Forgetting weather the accusation was true or not (it was true), am I correct in saying that he has not been defamed as the letter was not published on TV/radio/internet?

I'm 99% sure that I have not defamed anyone and my quick read of the Defamation Act 2009 backs this up.

Am I correct?

Kadongy

I think you're confusing defamation with libel.

You don't need to publish something to be guilty of defamation. You only need to say defamatory things about them in some way that other people can hear and present them as fact without very strong evidence to prove it is fact.

I'm not sure whether what you say is possible defamation. I think it depends whether the employee is considered a separate entity to the firm or not.

Bold Abdu

Kadongy wrote: »

I'm not sure whether what you say is possible defamation. I think it depends whether the employee is considered a separate entity to the firm or not.

OK I see what you are saying.

Is it not the case that for it to be defamation then the letter needed to be shown to a 3rd party by me.

Joe Blogg & Co. is a 1 partner firm. Although the letter was addressed to Joe Bloggs it was emailed to the solicitor in the office that was dealing with the case. This solicitor is named on the headed paper. Thus, I would not consider them to be a separate entity.

Would you agree?

blueythebear

Bold Abdu wrote: »

Hi there,

I've recently had a gripe with my solicitor about a matter...say Joe Bloggs & Co. In a letter that I emailed to one of Mr Bloggs' employees (Snr Solicitor who was dealing with the case and is named on the headed paper) I accused the firm of misleading and overcharging me in relation to my case.

Forgetting weather the accusation was true or not (it was true), am I correct in saying that he has not been defamed as the letter was not published on TV/radio/internet?

I'm 99% sure that I have not defamed anyone and my quick read of the Defamation Act 2009 backs this up.

Am I correct?

As you describe it, it would not be defamation. However, that's presuming that the email correspondence was emailed to the employee solicitor in Joe Bloggs & Co, and not CC'd to anyone.

Naturally, if you have a complaint about a solicitor and charges, make a complaint to the Law SOciety.

blueythebear

Kadongy wrote: »

I think you're confusing defamation with libel.

You don't need to publish something to be guilty of defamation. You only need to say defamatory things about them in some way that other people can hear and present them as fact without very strong evidence to prove it is fact.

I'm not sure whether what you say is possible defamation. I think it depends whether the employee is considered a separate entity to the firm or not.

THere is no such thing as libel anymore. Defamation Act 2009 abolished the separation of slander and libel so that there is only defamation. You do need to publish a defamatory statement to a third party for it to constitute defamation. However, publication in this context is essentailly communicating it to a third party or parties by any means, be it by literally publishing it in a book or even just saying the words aloud.

Kadongy

Bold Abdu wrote: »

OK I see what you are saying.

Is it not the case that for it to be defamation then the letter needed to be shown to a 3rd party by me.

Joe Blogg & Co. is a 1 partner firm. Although the letter was addressed to Joe Bloggs it was emailed to the solicitor in the office that was dealing with the case. This solicitor is named on the headed paper. Thus, I would not consider them to be a separate entity.

Would you agree?

I would agree, personally. That's just my personal opinion though.

Bold Abdu

Thanks for yor opinions folks.

Sorry for the late response