ex wife slander

garminguy

My separated wife has told mutual friends recently that i had testicular cancer and that i was gay.
Only she knows her reasons for doing this.
Can i take her to court for slander?
I have proof of the above by the way

Cavehill Red

If you can demonstrate that either statement was potentially damaging to your reputation, then my understanding is yes, you can.

Peregrinus

I think you're going to need to show actual damage to your standing, and not merely potential damage.

Saying that someone suffers from a non-infectious disease, like testicular cancer, is not normally defamatory.

Saying that someone is gay may be defamatory, depending on the context and the innuendo. In particular, saying that a man who is or has been married is gay might give rise to an innuendo that he deceived his wife with respect to his sexual orientation and/or that he cheated on his wife with a man or men. (In the past, to say that he was gay at all might be considered to lower his standing in the eyes of "typical, right-thinking members of society", but this might not be true today.)

Curly Judge

Snip

Peregrinus

Curly Judge wrote: »

Start your own rumour that you have HIV, chlamydia, syphilis and very bad thrush and that you got them all from her.:D

Be careful. The "imputation of unchastity to a woman" is, or used to be, actionable without proof of special damage.

(Except in Scotland, where presumably no such imputation would ever be made - or, if made, would not be considered slanderous.)

Porkchop McGee

Call her up and confront her about it, tell her you know what she has been saying and that it has to stop. Why does everything need to be done through the courts these days?

Tom Young

The 09 changes much of the above commentary.

234

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're going to need to show actual damage to your standing, and not merely potential damage.

This is incorrect.

Pat Mustard

If injury (stress, etc.) arises out of this, consider taking advice re action for nervous shock/emotional distress á la Janvier v Sweeney.

ResearchWill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're going to need to show actual damage to your standing, and not merely potential damage.

Saying that someone suffers from a non-infectious disease, like testicular cancer, is not normally defamatory.

Saying that someone is gay may be defamatory, depending on the context and the innuendo. In particular, saying that a man who is or has been married is gay might give rise to an innuendo that he deceived his wife with respect to his sexual orientation and/or that he cheated on his wife with a man or men. (In the past, to say that he was gay at all might be considered to lower his standing in the eyes of "typical, right-thinking members of society", but this might not be true today.)

6.— (1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—
(a) shall cease to be so described, and
(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.
(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.
(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.
(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where—
(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and
(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.
(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/index.html

Reloc8

OP asks if he can sue. Answer would be yes, as has been said, assuming that he is not in fact gay (not because being gay lowers one's reputation but because it is an allegation that one is 'living a lie' and what not' although in Ireland :-

"The next contention made by Mr Mallocco is to the effect that even if he is wrong in these contentions to allege of a person that he or she is " gay" is not harmful to reputation. Mr Malocco says "homosexuality is an accepted part of Irish life and the days are long gone when homosexuals were simple tolerated; they are now accepted and integrated into the fabric of Irish life like other minorities and this magazine fully endorses that reality". Mr Cooney S.C. for the Plaintiff says that this argument holds no water. He says that an allegation of being gay is an allegation of deviant sexual practice which many people in Irish society find repellant. He therefore argues that it is clearly defamatory.
It is however highly questionable that a false accusation of having cancer would be considered defamatory (might be an interesting cause of action if she said to e.g. an employer though)...

My own researches have however discovered a decision of the Court of Appeal in England which is of assistance. In Regina .v. Bishop (1975) I QB 274 that Court had to consider a case where a Defendant was tried at first instance on a charge involving theft from a bedroom. In evidence he explained the presence of his fingerprints in the room by saying that he had had a homosexual relationship with a prosecution witness, which that witness had denied. The prosecution sought leave to ask the Defendant questions tending to show that he had been convicted of offences other that that charged because the nature and conduct of the defence was such as to involve imputations on the character of the witness for the prosecution within Section 1(f)(II) of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. The Defendant objected on the grounds that, in view of Section 1(I) of the Sexual Offences Act, 1967.an allegation that a man was a homosexual or practised homosexuality was not an imputation on his character within Section 1(f)(II) of the Act, 1898, and in any event the allegation had beenmade for the purpose of explaining the Defendant's presence in the room and not for that of discrediting the testimony of the prosecution witness. The objection was rejected, questions about the Defendant's previous convictions were asked, and he was convicted. He appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that his objections to the evidence of his previous convictions had been wrongly rejected.

That Court (Stephenson L.J. MacKenna and O'Connor J.J.) dismissed the Appeal. The Court held that the character of a witness was impugned by an allegation of homosexual conduct made against him and an imputation of homosexual immorality against.a witness might reflect on his reliability. generally or in the witness box. The Court also held that a Defendant who made such an attack but disclaimed the intention to discredit the testimony of the witness nevertheless was still subject to the risk of cross-examination as to his own record. In the course of delivering the judgment of the Court Stephenson L.J. said:-

"Mr Bate submitted that in these progressive (or permissive) days it was no longer an imputation on a man's character to say of him that he was a homosexual or that he practised homosexuality. Since 1967. when Section I of the Sexual Offences Act, 1967 became law, it was no longer an offence to commit a homosexual act with another man of full age in private. No reasonable person would now think the worse of a man who committed such acts; he might not wish to associate with him but he would not condermn him. We think that this argument goes too far and that the gap between what is declared by Parliament to be illegal and punishable and what the common man or woman still regards as immoral or wrong is not wide enough to support it. We respectfully agree with the opinion of Lord Reid in Regina .v. Knulter (Publishing Printing and Promotions) Limited (1973) AC 435 at 457 that ‘there is a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties and making it lawful in the full senses’. and with him we read the Act of 1967 as saying that even though homosexual acts between consenting adults in private may be corrupting, if people choose to corrupt themselves in this way that is their affair and the law will not interfere. If Mr Price were to sue the Defendant in respect of his allegation if repeated outside a Court of law, we venture to think that a submission that the words were incupable of a defamatory meaning would be bound to fail and a jury would generally be likely to find them defamatory".

Whilst this last statement is very much on point to respect of the issue that I have to deal with here it is of course a statement made obiter. Nonetheless it does appear to me to represent the legal position in England and in my view it also represents the legal position in Ireland.

Quite apart from the decision which I have just cited it does not appear to me to be sound to suggest that merely because an activity is no longer prohibited by the criminal law an allegation of engaging in such activity cannot be defamatory. The commission of adultery is not a criminal offence but nobody could seriously suggest that an allegation of adultery could not be defamatory. Similarly, to lie is not a criminal offence. but again can it be seriously suggested that to call a person a liar is not defamatory?

I reject the Defendant's contentions in this regard." (Kelly J, Reynolds v Malocco (1999) 2 IR 203)

In 1999 at least.

Porkchop McGee wrote: »

Call her up and confront her about it, tell her you know what she has been saying and that it has to stop. Why does everything need to be done through the courts these days?

Mmmm. Just in passing, I'd be having a witness to that conversation though. This is clearly a fairly toxic relationship. I would be very reluctant to leave myself open in any way to allegations of verbal abuse/threats.

Pat Mustard

Reloc8 wrote: »

I would be very reluctant to leave myself open in any way to allegations of verbal abuse/threats.

Safest way is by carefully worded letter. No scope for subsequent misunderstandings.

Procrastastudy

I thought being gay was no longer considered grounds for defamation - you had to show some sort of double life. Or have I simply been 'resident on the moon'.

Predalien

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I thought being gay was no longer considered grounds for defamation - you had to show some sort of double life. Or have I simply been 'resident on the moon'.

I think it all depends on the person in question and their peers, certainly would be more damaging for a devout catholic for example. On the testicular cancer thing I'd wonder if such a thing could be considered defamatory as it suggests the man's fertility might be in question and this implication could be defamatory in certain circumstances.

Reloc8

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I thought being gay was no longer considered grounds for defamation - you had to show some sort of double life. Or have I simply been 'resident on the moon'.

I'm not (just) being smart but being gay is never grounds for defamation.

Reloc8 wrote: »

OP asks if he can sue. Answer would be yes, as has been said, assuming that he is not in fact gay (not because being gay lowers one's reputation but because it is an allegation that one is 'living a lie'...

The above is conjecture based on the possible attitude of a jury towards an allegation of homosexuality in the present social climate. There's no rule of law that says that a false allegation of being gay is definitively not defamatory.

That said I consider it at least a strong possibility if not likely that an Irish jury would conclude that a false allegation of homosexuality was in fact defamatory of a persons reputation.

The real issue is whether a trial judge would in fact let the matter go to a jury, i.e. whether the views of Kelly J expressed above in 1999 would be replicated in 2012 and onwards.

Fighting Irish

Porkchop McGee wrote: »

Call her up and confront her about it, tell her you know what she has been saying and that it has to stop. Why does everything need to be done through the courts these days?

She has already said it

garminguy

the gist i get then is that i have a case she is also giving the impression that i have abondoned them which is untrue, but there are only so many deceptions and lies that you can listen to before you have to act!

Procrastastudy

garminguy wrote: »

the gist i get then is that i have a case she is also giving the impression that i have abondoned them which is untrue, but there are only so many deceptions and lies that you can listen to before you have to act!

You realise how expensive defamation actions, for which there is no legal aid, are right?

ABajaninCork

If you feel that strongly, then why not send a solicitor's letter?

Reloc8

garminguy wrote: »

the gist i get then is that i have a case she is also giving the impression that i have abondoned them which is untrue, but there are only so many deceptions and lies that you can listen to before you have to act!

Look, does she have any money ?

Because if she doesn't, there is very, very little point in suing her, unless you are willing to pay over a truckload of your own money in legal costs.

If she doesn't, and you arn't, you'll just have to rely on your own reputation with people who think highly of you, or at least are willing to view you neutrally, and on the fact that for most people it will be clear that she is coming from a biased position regarding yourself.

i.e. try and swim above the ****e as much as you can.

I appreciate that can't be easy - and it's easier said than done, but there it is.

Solair

If I were you, I'd just explain to your mutual friends that you've just been through a bitter break-up / divorce and that those facts are made up.

Your ex will just discredit herself saying made-up stuff like that and come across as somewhat unhinged and your reputation would not be impacted upon at all.

Legal action in that instance is a bit like using a JCB to open a peanut.

I'd say your best bet is to start off by explaining to your friends that it's simply not true.
Then explaining to your ex, either in person or in writing that she needs to stop making stuff up about you.

If all that fails, perhaps then look at a letter from a solicitor or something.

Suing someone for something really is a last resort, and the legal system in Ireland tends to be weighted in such a way that it prefers people to resolve things before going to law.

periodictable

garminguy wrote: »

My separated wife has told mutual friends recently that i had testicular cancer and that i was gay.
Only she knows her reasons for doing this.
Can i take her to court for slander?
I have proof of the above by the way

Divorce the witch and be done of her.

MagicSean

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I thought being gay was no longer considered grounds for defamation - you had to show some sort of double life. Or have I simply been 'resident on the moon'.

Surely it would depend on the other person. Accusing a married man of being gay would, in my opinion, be an attack on his character. It's not about demonising homosexuality, it's about the implication of deceitful acts in hiding his sexuality.

Procrastastudy

MagicSean wrote: »

Surely it would depend on the other person. Accusing a married man of being gay would, in my opinion, be an attack on his character. It's not about demonising homosexuality, it's about the implication of deceitful acts in hiding his sexuality.

Thats what I meant by the double life thing. I think its the Reynolds case?

edgal

If your wife were to tell a potential employer that you have cancer, this may act as defamation as it has caused some harm to you.
However this has been said to 'friends' thus defamation does not appear to be present.

There are other scenarios in which an allegation of homosexuality may take the form of defamation. E.g. if she had said this to someone you were in a relationship with causing them to terminate such a relationship etcetera.

however the scenario that you have presented would not suggest significant harm or defamation has actually occurred, thus a court may be reluctant to adjudicate on such trivial family matters. This would open up the gates for further litigation.

234

edgal wrote: »

If your wife were to tell a potential employer that you have cancer, this may act as defamation as it has caused some harm to you.
However this has been said to 'friends' thus defamation does not appear to be present.

Again, this in incorrect. The 2009 Act makes all forms of defamation (which includes the old concepts of libel and slander) actionable without proof of special damage.

Where the above might be relevant is when the court would compute damages as the extend and nature of publication is relatively limited.

edgal

234 wrote: »

Again, this in incorrect. The 2009 Act makes all forms of defamation (which includes the old concepts of libel and slander) actionable without proof of special damage.

Where the above might be relevant is when the court would compute damages as the extend and nature of publication is relatively limited.

OP is looking for damages if they were awarded in this case the scope of litigation would be far reaching.
The mundane and regular occurrences of people casually talking about someone in passing behind their back with 'friends' could lead to limitless judicial review.

it may indeed be defamation however the material affect on a person's livelihood etcetera rather than their feeling being hurt is a significant factor in determining whether litigation can proceed.
In the OP's case substantial damages being rewarded would be unlikely.

Pat Mustard

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the OP has been defamed by a defamatory statement.

“ defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly;

If the OP brings defamation proceedings based on said defamatory statement, why do you mention judicial review?

234

edgal wrote: »

OP is looking for damages if they were awarded in this case the scope of litigation would be far reaching.
The mundane and regular occurrences of people casually talking about someone in passing behind their back with 'friends' could lead to limitless judicial review.

it may indeed be defamation however the material affect on a person's livelihood etcetera rather than their feeling being hurt is a significant factor in determining whether litigation can proceed.
In the OP's case substantial damages being rewarded would be unlikely.

Unless the other side succeeds with a motion to dismiss then there is no reason why any hypothetical case along these lines could not proceed to a full hearing. Granted, the court may not look favourably on the plaintiff, and even if they succeed they might be hammered on costs, the law does not require that there is publication of any particular extent, just that there is publication.

What would be the grounds for the judicial review application you mention?

garminguy

234 wrote: »

Unless the other side succeeds with a motion to dismiss then there is no reason why any hypothetical case along these lines could not proceed to a full hearing. Granted, the court may not look favourably on the plaintiff, and even if they succeed they might be hammered on costs, the law does not require that there is publication of any particular extent, just that there is publication.

What would be the grounds for the judicial review application you mention?

To bring this up to date
I was out socialising with my new partner last night when she struck up a conversation with a mutual friend from my ex
He informed her that i was gay and had been told this by my ex!
Exactly how much of this crap do i have to tolerate!
I have told her to stop spreading these false rumours.
Surely there is some action i can take to put a stop to this?

Peregrinus

To be honest, I think the courts are going to be reluctant to treat slanging matches between lovers or spouses who have fallen out as actionable. It would be one thing if your ex-wife had accused you of armed robbery or runing a child porn ring, but casting aspersions against an ex-lover's sexual prowess, sexual orientation or sexual confidence falls pretty squarely into "vulgar abuse" territory, and mere vulgar abuse is not actionable.

Your new partner presumably knows you well enough to make her own judgment about your sexual orientation rather than to have to take seriously something she has heard only at second hand which is sourced from a woman who has a grudge against you.

I don't think you have a legal remedy here. Sometimes bad breakups are, well, bad. That's not a problem that has an effective legal solution because it's not, basically, a legal problem.

Plus, a defamation action - even if it might succeed - is basically a bottomless pit into which you pour vast amounts of money. There is no order a court can make which will undo the fact that your ex-wife has said these things about you; all you can hope to achieve is to spend vast amounts of money, and to draw a great deal of attention to what your ex-wife is saying. Plus, you will give her the satisfaction of knowing that she has got to you with her scurrilous remarks.

The number of people who actually care whether you are gay or not is pretty small, and they are all personally known to you. Launching a defamation action is a very inefficient way of persuading them that you are not gay. If you're worried that these people might think you're gay, talk to them. But, remember, most people will think that spreading such rumours reflects much more badly on your wife than it does on you.