defamation?

berrypendel

Someone abuses you and you complain to their boss.

In response they send internal emails to their boss whch contains lies about you is that defamation. Is it published if known to more than one person in the company. Is there any way the lies can be corrected

paky

you'd probably need copies of the emails to prove they exist and then to prove they're false

berrypendel

paky wrote: »

you'd probably need copies of the emails to prove they exist and then to prove they're false

if you had the emails how would you prove they were false? Would it not be one word against the other

coylemj

berrypendel wrote: »

if you had the emails how would you prove they were false? Would it not be one word against the other

Depends on whether the statements were of fact or expressing an opinion.

berrypendel

coylemj wrote: »

Depends on whether the statements were of fact or expressing an opinion.

they are claimed as fact but untrue

coylemj

berrypendel wrote: »

they are claimed as fact but untrue

Fair enough but I find it strange that you're asking us: 'if you had the emails how would you prove they were false?'

Surely you're the only person who can answer that question? We know nothing about the circumstances or what was said in the e-mail.

berrypendel

coylemj wrote: »

Fair enough but I find it strange that you're asking us: 'if you had the emails how would you prove they were false?'

Surely you're the only person who can answer that question? We know nothing about the circumstances or what was said in the e-mail.

What I mean is how could one ever prove the facts. If someone records a lie about someone else how would a defamation case prove who was telling the truth? There would be no witness would it not be word against word?

CZ 453

berrypendel wrote: »

Someone abuses you and you complain to their boss.

In response they send internal emails to their boss whch contains lies about you is that defamation. Is it published if known to more than one person in the company. Is there any way the lies can be corrected

It depends if its privileged.
Qualified privilege attaches to communications where the informant has a legal, moral or social duty to communicate the information and the recipient has a similar duty to receive it. For example, a person may write to an employer making allegations of dishonesty or incompetence against an employee. If the allegations are made in good faith, even if they are factually wrong, the communication is not actionable. This privilege is defeated by proof of malice.

NoQuarter

berrypendel wrote: »

What I mean is how could one ever prove the facts. If someone records a lie about someone else how would a defamation case prove who was telling the truth? There would be no witness would it not be word against word?

Its up to you to prove the statement was false.

As for your original question, yes publishing to one other is considered publication for defamation purposes. The lies would have to "lower you in the eyes of reasonable members of society" so it the lies are not bad enough to damage your reputation then it is not defamation.

There are a number of defences to defamation including honest opinion. google the "defamation Act 2009" and have a read.

I dont know what you mean by aasking are there any ways lies can be corrected??!

Procrastastudy

berrypendel wrote: »

What I mean is how could one ever prove the facts. If someone records a lie about someone else how would a defamation case prove who was telling the truth? There would be no witness would it not be word against word?

He's always late - check the clocking in and clocking out
He's got awful personal hygiene - have a sniff
He's failed to make his sales targets - check the targets...

He's rubbish at his job = opinion and not fact

difficult to deal with these in the abstract but common sense should apply.

Procrastastudy

berrypendel wrote: »

Is there any way the lies can be corrected

Your company's hypothetical company's grievance procedure.

fufureida

berrypendel wrote: »

Someone abuses you and you complain to their boss.

In response they send internal emails to their boss whch contains lies about you is that defamation. Is it published if known to more than one person in the company. Is there any way the lies can be corrected

I'm a 1st year law student but judging from what I know so far from my defamation notes, yes, he/she has defamed you/tarnished your good name. I believe it depends on whether or not there is malice in the emails, has he used bad language for example, or accused you of doing something for definite, or is he just alluding to the fact that you may have done something? The email has to be definite like, it can't be general and you must be sure it is definitely about you.

NoQuarter

fufureida wrote: »

I'm a 1st year law student but judging from what I know so far from my defamation notes, yes, he/she has defamed you/tarnished your good name. I believe it depends on whether or not there is malice in the emails, has he used bad language for example, or accused you of doing something for definite, or is he just alluding to the fact that you may have done something? The email has to be definite like, it can't be general and you must be sure it is definitely about you.

I'd read back over those notes a few times if I was you!

Procrastastudy

fufureida wrote: »

I'm a 1st year law student but judging from what I know so far from my defamation notes, yes, he/she has defamed you/tarnished your good name.

Never argue absolutes always argue both sides.

fufureida wrote: »

I believe it depends on whether or not there is malice in the emails, has he used bad language for example,

I think you have this mixed up with defence of reasonable publication. What has bad language got to do with it - maybe you're just naturally foul mouthed.

fufureida wrote: »

or accused you of doing something for definite, or is he just alluding to the fact that you may have done something?

Fair enough...

fufureida wrote: »

The email has to be definite like, it can't be general and you must be sure it is definitely about you.

No - it merely needs to considered about him by a reasonable person.

e.g. that ginger twerp in accounting could easily be taken to mean someone if they were the only person with ginger hair in accounting.

Procrastastudy

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'd read back over those notes a few times if I was you!

If you got them from where I think you got them throw them out and read the sections in Healy and Quill and a cuople of Articles... also tie them in with your Con law notes for the ECHR, BnaE balanacing act.

Then go and ask David about Norweign seal fishermen.

mitzicat

fufureida wrote: »

I'm a 1st year law student but judging from what I know so far from my defamation notes, yes, he/she has defamed you/tarnished your good name. I believe it depends on whether or not there is malice in the emails, has he used bad language for example, or accused you of doing something for definite, or is he just alluding to the fact that you may have done something? The email has to be definite like, it can't be general and you must be sure it is definitely about you.

Also, for God sakes, never say/write the word "like" when offering an opinion. Get rid of that habit now.

You'll need to be a bit more technical if you're faced with a defamation question on the exam.

mitzicat

NoQuarter wrote: »

Its up to you to prove the statement was false.

As for your original question, yes publishing to one other is considered publication for defamation purposes. The lies would have to "lower you in the eyes of reasonable members of society" so it the lies are not bad enough to damage your reputation then it is not defamation.

There are a number of defences to defamation including honest opinion. google the "defamation Act 2009" and have a read.

I dont know what you mean by aasking are there any ways lies can be corrected??!

It is not up to the person asserting defamation to prove that the statements are false. Truth is a defence to a claim of defamation, but the burden of proof does not lie on the claimant to prove the statement was false. The claimant must prove that the statement was made and that it injures their reputation in the minds of reasonable members of society.

NoQuarter

mitzicat wrote: »

It is not up to the person asserting defamation to prove that the statements are false. Truth is a defence to a claim of defamation, but the burden of proof does not lie on the claimant to prove the statement was false. The claimant must prove that the statement was made and that it injures their reputation in the minds of reasonable members of society.

I accept that. I was looking at s.42 and carried over that principle in error!

berrypendel

Thanks for all the feedback guys