How to take a defamation case against someone when I have no money?

KarmaBaby

I was put through a fairly traumatic period by an individual last year who, among other things, falsely accused me of assaulting him, and made a false complaint to my college in an attempt to have me expelled. He has also quite publicly intimated that I am of a violent nature and that I pose a physical threat to others. He presented zero evidence of this and of course this is entirely contrary to my nature. My closest run in with the law was a speeding fine.

I had been out of the country on work placement for seven month but now that, I'm back I'm looking into the possibility of taking a defamation case against him.

From what I understand of defamation cases though, it is nigh on impossible to take one against someone unless you have significant financial backing to cover the legal costs. No lawyer is going to do this pro-none are they?

Is it possible for someone of limited financial means take such a case against someone? What are my options?

Tom Young

Read the charter.

NoQuarter

You cant get civil legal aid for defamation cases if I remember correctly. Besides that, the statute of limitations is 1 year (bar exceptional circumstances) and you have mentioned 7 months so be aware that you may be out of time anyway.

You could speak to a few solicitors and see if they will do the case for free but I wouldnt hold my breath.

coylemj

Spoken defamation (previously known as slander) tends to attract less damages than written defamation (previously known as libel), that's the first thing to be aware of. Secondly, if you sued for defamation and won, does the individual have any assets worth chasing? If not then nobody will take on the case unless you put up the money to cover their costs, why would they?

KarmaBaby

Snip

Tom Young

Stop posting details immediately please.

krd

coylemj wrote: »

Secondly, if you sued for defamation and won, does the individual have any assets worth chasing?

Not directed at the op.....but a general query, re assets.

If, in the instance of a libel or defamation case you are successful. And the court awards damages. If the libeler, has an "asset"....let's say a house bought in the boom times....they have a huge mortgage, and only dribs and bits of drabs have been paid off..............But that is the only asset they technically own. .........Who has first call on that asset, the bank that holds the mortgage, or the court awarding damages?

Is there some kind of equity split?

And second question

Is there any kind of "entrapment" defense against defamation in Ireland?

Can a party claim, as a defence, they were tricked or enticed into a defamation?

Procrastastudy

I was watching HIGNFY the other day. Jeremy Clarkson (of all people) said something I think I'll remember for a while.

"An injunction is a great way of making sure a really boring story gets lots of attention while spending huge sums of money."

Or word to that effect.

Mr Trade In

Try these guys. WWW.FLAC.IE

krd

Procrastastudy wrote: »

"An injunction is a great way of making sure a really boring story gets lots of attention while spending huge sums of money."

Because he got a super injunction. ......And he was using Carter-Ruck .........Who are incredibly F'ing expensive.


And the incredibly boring story, was him having his fingers in a pie, that wasn't his wife's pie.

Anyway....Jeremy...the man who is incredibly wealthy, but has the face of a shriveled foreskin over a remarkably small penis. Has *cough* used advice, and, or, the threats of *cough* advice, to "chill" people for years.

The guy is really really really stinking rich - Like Seanie Quinn's bottom use to smell. And Carter-Ruck are incredibly good at teaching people the goldenness of silence. And that's where they make most of their money. Making problems disappear - 1970s South America style.

Peregrinus

krd wrote: »

Not directed at the op.....but a general query, re assets.

If, in the instance of a libel or defamation case you are successful. And the court awards damages. If the libeler, has an "asset"....let's say a house bought in the boom times....they have a huge mortgage, and only dribs and bits of drabs have been paid off..............But that is the only asset they technically own. .........Who has first call on that asset, the bank that holds the mortgage, or the court awarding damages?

Is there some kind of equity split?

The bank's interest is unaffected. The asset you are chasing is the defendant's equity in the house, which doesn't suddenly become larger because the defendant has committed a tort.

krd wrote: »

And second question

Is there any kind of "entrapment" defense against defamation in Ireland?

Can a party claim, as a defence, they were tricked or enticed into a defamation?

They can possibly say that they were tricked or enticed by the plaintiff, and then argue that since he consented to the making of the statement in question, he cannot now complain about it. (Volenti non fit inuria.)

But enticed by a third party? No defence. Not a chance. Possibly, depending on the circumstances, join the third party as a co-defendant, and hope to get a contribution from them towards paying any damages which may be awarded.

krd

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bank's interest is unaffected. The asset you are chasing is the defendant's equity in the house, which doesn't suddenly become larger because the defendant has committed a tort.

Damn bank...Will just have to settle for his shirts and underpants.

They can possibly say that they were tricked or enticed by the plaintiff, and then argue that since he consented to the making of the statement in question, he cannot now complain about it. (Volenti non fit inuria.)

The John Terry defense.

I'm thinking of more calculated slanders. Where someone is trying to undermine the person or the person's business. In the instance say - and I have seen this done - where a competitor is calling up your suppliers and making claims that you don't pay, and you're a crook etc. And it can be nearly impossible to know what's happening. Orders are being canceled for no reason, suppliers are suddenly not delivering. Customers are refusing to speak to you.

But enticed by a third party? No defence. Not a chance. Possibly, depending on the circumstances, join the third party as a co-defendant, and hope to get a contribution from them towards paying any damages which may be awarded.

Catching someone at slander is a really tricky thing. You need a third party. Most third parties in the equation will just want to stay out of trouble. So, you may need a confederate.

If the confederate coaxes and lies, in an effort to get the slanders, does this give the slanderer a defense? Or worse, does it backfire and give the slanderer and opportunity to sue?

For example, your confederate calls the suspected slanderer, and says "Hi, I'm looking up stuff on this guy. My boss really wants to give him a contract, but I don't like the look of him. Is there anything you could tell me about him to help me out?"

The slanderer starts his slander, and your confederate eggs him on. Coaxing him into a lurid character assignation.

Of course there is no contract, and the confederate is lying, does the fact the confederate is using deception give the slanderer an out?

Or is the slanderer nailed?

I think the chilling effect is more beneficial than damages.

And another point. If an officer of a company makes a slander, while in work (using a work telephone, say) - can the company be held liable?

Peregrinus

krd wrote: »

Catching someone at slander is a really tricky thing. You need a third party. Most third parties in the equation will just want to stay out of trouble. So, you may need a confederate.

If the confederate coaxes and lies, in an effort to get the slanders, does this give the slanderer a defense? Or worse, does it backfire and give the slanderer and opportunity to sue?

For example, your confederate calls the suspected slanderer, and says "Hi, I'm looking up stuff on this guy. My boss really wants to give him a contract, but I don't like the look of him. Is there anything you could tell me about him to help me out?"

The slanderer starts his slander, and your confederate eggs him on. Coaxing him into a lurid character assignation.

Of course there is no contract, and the confederate is lying, does the fact the confederate is using deception give the slanderer an out?

Or is the slanderer nailed?

I think the chilling effect is more beneficial than damages.

Gosh. Thin ice.

If, purely hypothetically, someone was going to do this, then they should definitely avoid inviting negative assessments of the person concerned, since that really does raise the consent issue. Ask neutral, non-leading questions.
But, even with that, I question the value of the exercise. If I recall correctly, in an action for slander (spoken defamation) you generally have to prove special damages in order to succeed. If all you can prove is that you were slandered to a confederate of yours, who embarked upon the conversation expecting to hear falsehoods about you, how are you going to prove special damage? Presumably your confederate did not believe what he heard about you, so his estimation of you was not lowered. So, no case. You need to produce a witness who heard bad things about you, believed them, changed his estimation of you as a result and (ideally) then changed his behaviour towards you in a way that materially damaged you (e.g. by ruling you out of consideration for a contract that you would otherwise have been considered for).

krd wrote: »

And another point. If an officer of a company makes a slander, while in work (using a work telephone, say) - can the company be held liable?

You’d need additional facts. If he defames a commercial rival, to the advantage of his employer, then probably, yes. But if he’s on a purely personal defamatory frolic, making personal calls on his employer’s phone, or posting to facebook from his employer’s computer, I wouldn’t think so.

234

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I recall correctly, in an action for slander (spoken defamation) you generally have to prove special damages in order to succeed.

Since the 2009 Act it's all defamation and there is no longer a requirement ot prove special damage.