Liability for defamation

gozunda

I have been reading up on the law of defamation. The detail on first hand defamation appears straightforward enough, but in relation to other forms of defamation it is less clear, so I am wondering if anyone can point out some existing cases or explain any of the following.

Can a family member, employer etc be held liable for defamation caused by an relation, employee etc to someone else?

If they can be held liable - is it likely that an employer, family member etc could use a defence that they did not have any knowledge that the employee/ relation was likely to do so?

I have found some recent cases on-line but they all seem to relate to email or social media cases, but not in relation to defamation through other methods such as written defamation so I am none the wiser....

Tom Young

The search function here might be enlightening.

Slander and Libel were merged in the 2009 Act. So, oral and written publication.

Certain publications may be subject to the defence of qualified privilege pursuant to s.18 of the 2009 Act.

Social media is no different here in re. Defamation actions and publications.

gozunda

Tom Young wrote: »

The search function here might be enlightening.

Slander and Libel were merged in the 2009 Act. So, oral and written publication.

Certain publications may be subject to the defence of qualified privilege pursuant to s.18 of the 2009 Act.

Social media is no different here in re. Defamation actions and publications.

Thanks for that I will do a search.

One question that I found on a US site whether or not
To be found liable an individual would have to had some knowledge of the likelihood that the other individual would engage in such behaviour or is that not relevant in the case of defamation in Ireland?

Mr. Incognito

Firstly forget any US sites

Defamation is covered by the Defamation Act 2009.

Case law is not the starting point.

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

Read sections 6 specifically

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.

Section 14 and Part 3 are also important to read

You dont go into any specific detail but defamation must really be accompanied by loss of reputation and other damages for it to be actionable.

If it is your family member slagging you off you are wasting your time taking any action. Hurt feelings are not really actionable. It has to be an untrue, reputation damaging statement which is repeated to an audience that causes damage.

gozunda

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Firstly forget any US sites

Defamation is covered by the Defamation Act 2009.

Case law is not the starting point.

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

Read sections 6 specifically

Section 14 and Part 3 are also important to read

You dont go into any specific detail but defamation must really be accompanied by loss of reputation and other damages for it to be actionable.

If it is your family member slagging you off you are wasting your time taking any action. Hurt feelings are not really actionable. It has to be an untrue, reputation damaging statement which is repeated to an audience that causes damage.

Thanks for the information and references. No specific case. I have read the legislation and as said I am fairly ok with most of its application.

Where I am getting lost is the application of the law to incidences where liability is not direct as in the case of an employer, employee and a third person. For example can a college be liable for defamation by a student of other staff or members of the public? From a search of relevant cases it does appear clear that in the case of an employee - having defamed someone else - an employer can be held liable but other instances are not implied.

The mention of the US site was in relation to a defence of the person held liable - that not knowing that the individual whose actions they were held liable for had a propensity for such behaviour allowed such liability to be dismissed. But I don't see any such provisio in the relevant act so Can only presume it's not a defence that could be used here.

I also looked up some instances of vicarious liability but I am still far from certain how far such liability can extend.

234

Here is a statement that beings to get at the issue. From , Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] HKCFA 47 per Ma CJ:

63 Plainly, if a defendant knew the content of a defamatory article and authorised or participated in its publication, that defendant would be liable as a main publisher. As Eady J. pointed out in Bunt v Tilley , “It is clear that the state of a defendant’s knowledge can be an important factor” —a point to which I shall return. But in the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondents were unaware of the offending words until some time after they had been published on the forum. This is not a case where liability as publisher can be founded upon  vicarious  liability for the publishing acts of employees or upon rules for attributing  liability to a corporation for the acts of its organs or agents.

Also, Pena v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] EWHC 3027 (QB) is probably relevant. Here the publication of defamatory statements by an employee did not fix his employer with liability since the statements were not closely connected with the discharge of his functions as an employee.