Is this not slander

edenbridge146

Hi guys

I do a part time job, updating the voting register.
Last week I called to a house within a housing estate and noticed the flap of the letterbox was on the ground. No one was at home when I called.
So I left a pre-printed paper issued from the Council stating the time and date that I called and could the occupants of the house return the form attached. The form included my name and contact telephone number. Its a standard form for every household to complete once no reply is received at the door.

Anyhow, about an hour later I get a telephone call from the householder and she stating that I broke her letterbox!! I denied it profously and advised her the letterbox was on the ground when I had already called to her property. So I instructed her that if she didn't believe me that I advised her to contact the Gardai and or the Council(my employer).

So she has contacted my employers, the council. They have instructed her to post the said letterbox to the Council where they may test for fingerprints!!

I'm becoming very distressed now that I am being blamed for something that I did not do. This woman is now telling these untruths to a third party, without proof other than a broken letter box. She did not see me do it.

On the other hand, if the Council pay her for the broken letterbox, are they not admitting liability by a member of their staff?

I'm very happy for fingerprints to be taken as I haven't touched her letterbox whatsoever.

Any suggestions on what I should do? Is this not slander?

AngryHippie

Biddys will be Biddys.

wouldn't worry about it

littlemac1980

1. There's no such thing as slander any more.

2. Look up the defence of qualified privilege.

3. Being upset about damage to ones property doesn't make someone a 'biddy'.

Procrastastudy

It sounds like a biddy to me. OP also sounds a bit delicate. Moving on...

Say you are at a market stall and someone thinks you have stolen something. As you walk away the owner runs after you and Shouts "Stop! You took X". People around the market hear it - that would be qualified privilege. It would be unfair in those circumstances to award you damages. Sorry thats really babdly explained but this isn't meant to be legal advice.

Just because the council are going to replace a letter box (because they know it's easier than bothering with the biddy) doesn't mean the local guards are going to be knocking on your door telling you the council said you did it.

If the council try and discipline you over it then insist on proof that you broke it.

OP don't let the little things in life upset you - there are plenty of big things to worry about.

EDIT:

edenbridge146 wrote: »

So she has contacted my employers, the council. They have instructed her to post the said letterbox to the Council where they may test for fingerprints!!

Brilliant! - thats someone in the council who's been dealing with people for years. A master fober-offerer.

super_furry

The council are really going to fingerprint you and the letterbox?

biddybops

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

It sounds like a biddy to me. OP also sounds a bit delicate. Moving on...

Say you are at a market stall and someone thinks you have stolen something. As you walk away the owner runs after you and Shouts "Stop! You took X". People around the market hear it - that would be qualified privilege. It would be unfair in those circumstances to award you damages. Sorry thats really babdly explained but this isn't meant to be legal advice.

Just because the council are going to replace a letter box (because they know it's easier than bothering with the biddy) doesn't mean the local guards are going to be knocking on your door telling you the council said you did it.

If the council try and discipline you over it then insist on proof that you broke it.

OP don't let the little things in life upset you - there are plenty of big things to worry about.

EDIT:

edenbridge146 wrote: »

So she has contacted my employers, the council. They have instructed her to post the said letterbox to the Council where they may test for fingerprints!!

Brilliant! - thats someone in the council who's been dealing with people for years. A master fober-offerer.

I will have you for slander sir, if it wasn't for biddys the whole country would go to rack and ruin.

whiteonblu

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

It sounds like a biddy to me. OP also sounds a bit delicate. Moving on...

Say you are at a market stall and someone thinks you have stolen something. As you walk away the owner runs after you and Shouts "Stop! You took X". People around the market hear it - that would be qualified privilege. It would be unfair in those circumstances to award you damages. Sorry thats really babdly explained but this isn't meant to be legal advice.

Just because the council are going to replace a letter box (because they know it's easier than bothering with the biddy) doesn't mean the local guards are going to be knocking on your door telling you the council said you did it.

If the council try and discipline you over it then insist on proof that you broke it.

OP don't let the little things in life upset you - there are plenty of big things to worry about.

EDIT:



Brilliant! - thats someone in the council who's been dealing with people for years. A master fober-offerer.

how is that qualified privelege/ and what would be unqualified p or whatever the term is

Procrastastudy

biddybops wrote: »

I will have you for slander sir, if it wasn't for biddys the whole country would go to rack and ruin.

LOL - I actually agree - it's doesn't stop it being classic Biddy behaviour. Truth told I'm a bit of a biddy as well... "oooh don't park there... don't be chasing the cat round the car park.... turn it down! etc etc"

While we're at it you'll have me under the Defamation Act 2009

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/index.html Section 18 for QP - there are also a couple of threads here quite recently with a link to a good case or two.

In fact I'm just about to go in and find out why I was awarded a measly 58 on Tort II when I included said case which we weren't taught. Not that we should be spoon fed everything but I though I'd was a shoe in for a 2.1 - thankfully my assignment pushed me over the line - oh the joys of product liability! In hind sight I think pointing out the exam paper contained an error probably didn't do me any favours - anonymous marking my left foot!

NoQuarter

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Say you are at a market stall and someone thinks you have stolen something. As you walk away the owner runs after you and Shouts "Stop! You took X". People around the market hear it - that would be qualified privilege. .

As the people in the market would have no interest or duty in receiving that information nor would the owner have a duty to communicate that information to the market shoppers, this wouldnt be qualified privilege.

If the owner shouted that information to a nearby police officer, that would be qualified privilege.

whiteonblu wrote:

what would be unqualified p or whatever the term is

Everything else not contained within s.18 of the Defamation Act, 2009. But there are many more defences to defamation so its not simply split into qualified privilege statements or not qualified priviledge.

Procrastastudy

That explains the 58 then

I thought that was a very basic summary of the facts in..

Hang on I'll go find it. (and re read it - it seems)

Here we are

McCormack v Olsthoorn [2004] 3 IR 632

Delancey

Fingerprint a letterbox ? Never heard anything so ludicrous - really OP this is nothing . The householder sounds like a pain in the ass biddy and tbh you let her win by worrying about this nonsense - move on and forget about it.

coylemj

Delancey wrote: »

Fingerprint a letterbox ? Never heard anything so ludicrous - really OP this is nothing . The householder sounds like a pain in the ass biddy and tbh you let her win by worrying about this nonsense - move on and forget about it.

+1 OP, you're not seriously suggesting that you will suffer reputational damage as a result of that woman's hysterical outburst?

Like, you'll be passed over for promotion and/or transferred to a remote council office to serve out your remaining years in exile with a cloud of shame hanging over you?

Didn't think so, move on and forget about it.

Any council employee who has to call on houses is going to be involved with loose garden gates that fall off, stepping on a kid's toy in the garden and other minor incidents, it goes with the job. I know you didn't damage the letterbox, what I'm saying is that even if you did, that type of thing goes with the turf so is not a big deal.

In this case the woman is trying it on because when she came home and saw the flyers on her hall floor, she figured that the council is an easier target to bully to pay for a new letterbox than the local pizza shop or double-glazing outfit.

nuac

1. Councils dont go all CSI over cod claims

2 Relax, Look I had a cod claim years ago about a lady of venerable age ( OK a biddy ) who claimed her neighbour got a goat to butt her in the backside, Had a competition in the office to name the case - Unprintable results.

Delancey

nuac wrote: »

1. Councils dont go all CSI over cod claims

2 Relax, Look I had a cod claim years ago about a lady of venerable age ( OK a biddy ) who claimed her neighbour got a goat to butt her in the backside, Had a competition in the office to name the case - Unprintable results.

Nuac , I do hope you ' milked ' that case for all it was worth ( boom tish )

Procrastastudy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Say you are at a market stall and someone thinks you have stolen something. As you walk away the owner runs after you and Shouts "Stop! You took X". People around the market hear it - that would be qualified privilege. It would be unfair in those circumstances to award you damages. Sorry thats really babdly explained but this isn't meant to be legal advice.

Given McCormack v Olsthoorn [2004] 3 IR 632 would someone be kind enough to point out where I've gone wrong on interpretation of QP? Thanks in advance - sorry to hijack the thread but it's sort of relevant to the OP.

NoQuarter

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Given McCormack v Olsthoorn [2004] 3 IR 632 would someone be kind enough to point out where I've gone wrong on interpretation of QP? Thanks in advance - sorry to hijack the thread but it's sort of relevant to the OP.

We could start with the fact that any consideration of qualified privilege in Olsthoorn was 5 years before the 2009 Act was introduced. The 2009 Act gives us a full definition of qualified privilege and imo could only be safely relied upon on its own words until we have a post-09 case on the matter.

That being said, you'll learn after your undergrad degree when trying to put arguments into practice that there are two arguments to everything and if a similar case came up now, I would use a 2004 case in my argument if it took my side. The law is very fluid in parts and rely on few judgments as gospel. IMO.

Procrastastudy

Thanks NoQuarter very enlightening answer! Another question if I may:

When an act is considered simply a restatement of the common law would all the preceding case law still apply or is there so no such thing as this type of restatement. If there is would it say somewhere in the act?

NoQuarter

It will state it in the "repeal" which is usually in the first few sections. Compare the Defamation Act, 2009 which doesnt repeal the common law (however the difference in your scenario is that the defence of QP has been explained fully in the new Act, that is why perhaps an older case is weaker) to the Occupiers Liability Act which repeals the common law via s. 2.

Procrastastudy

Thanks again! Would something like Byrne and McCutcheon's book on the Irish legal system cover off things like this? I think I may have missed some fairly elementary areas of study. If not is there a book you could suggest? Sorry to be a pain.

OP Sorry I've dragged this completely off topic at this stage - I really wouldn't worry about it - not legal advice - but after it's been through the post I suspect it will be difficult to compare finger prints... something slightly amusing about a letterbox going though a letterbox though.

NoQuarter

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Thanks again! Would something like Byrne and McCutcheon's book on the Irish legal system cover off things like this? I think I may have missed some fairly elementary areas of study. If not is there a book you could suggest? Sorry to be a pain.

OP Sorry I've dragged this completely off topic at this stage - I really wouldn't worry about it - not legal advice - but after it's been through the post I suspect it will be difficult to compare finger prints... something slightly amusing about a letterbox going though a letterbox though.

Ah given this forum is "legal discussion" and not "legal advice", we are still on topic, unless the OP is not talking hypothetical?

I cant remember B&Mc covering that, its just practice, comes with reading the acts themselves.

Cases are great an all but KISS (keep it simple stupid). The definition of QP is in the Act, what more would you need? it says what it is right there. Same with the repeal (or lack thereof), thats also in the Act. You arent missing anything, you are just looking at too much and looking elsewhere that right under your nose. Just my 2c, others may disagree.

ResearchWill

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Thanks NoQuarter very enlightening answer! Another question if I may:

When an act is considered simply a restatement of the common law would all the preceding case law still apply or is there so no such thing as this type of restatement. If there is would it say somewhere in the act?

While MCCormack is an excelent judgement, it is ignored everyday in Circuit Courts up and down the country. Many cases where there is Quilified privilage similar to McCormack are decided giving awards in the thousands all the time. What the law says and what happens in courts on a daily basis can some times be very different.

While the decision is that of a supreme court judge, it is not as binding as a High Court case as it was a decision of the High Court hearing a Circuit Court appeal case. so in effect it was a SC judge exercising Circuit Court jurisdiction.