Defamation

jezzer

Folks, over a year ago i bought something online from someone in the UK, i never received what i paid for and i went looking for my money back....it took over 6 months to get some of the money back and i am still waiting on the rest, i got the police in the Uk involved and they went to the vendors home and spoke to him about it but he still didnt pay me back, basically what he did was fraud....i sent him some irate emails calling him all sorts in the hope that it would rile him into giving back my money....i found his facebook account and posted that he was a scammer and had took my money and i contacted some of his friends to warn them not to give him money as he scammed me....now he is threatening to bring me to court for defamation...what i need to know is, can he do this? if so what would the lightly outcome be? i am based here in Ireland him in the UK? surely even from a monetary point of view it wouldnt be worth his while?

davo10

He's full of BS. In order to prove that you defamed him, he would have to show that what you posted was incorrect, therefore having to prove that he fulfilled his part of the transaction. He didn't and there is a police record of your complaint against him.

Just tell him he should be more concerned about a visit from Trade & Standards than you are about any defamation proceedings. In fact tell him you would welcome any effort on his part to initiate legal proceedings as it would give you an opportunity to put you side of the matter on record.

dudara

Why would you post on someone's personal Facebook page and contact their friends? If this item was purchased in a private transaction, then you have no comeback really, unless you used eBay. If was a professional sale, then you deal with them through official channels. You've drawn this upon yourself IMO.

This is not a Consumer Issue. It is a matter for a legal professional at this stage. I will move this to the Legal Discussion forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is closed with advice to visit a solicitor.

dudara

FobleAsNuck

Defamation occurs only if what you're saying is not true.

Oryx

FobleAsNuck wrote: »

Defamation occurs only if what you're saying is not true.

The burden of proving what they said is true is on the person accused of defamation.

jezzer

davo10 wrote: »

He's full of BS. In order to prove that you defamed him, he would have to show that what you posted was incorrect, therefore having to prove that he fulfilled his part of the transaction. He didn't and there is a police record of your complaint against him.

Just tell him he should be more concerned about a visit from Trade & Standards than you are about any defamation proceedings. In fact tell him you would welcome any effort on his part to initiate legal proceedings as it would give you an opportunity to put you side of the matter on record.

Thanks for your helpful reply, as i was thinking, it is on record and i have the police record of my complaint...if he cant afford to refund me the money surely he cant afford legal proceedings

jezzer

dudara wrote: »

Why would you post on someone's personal Facebook page and contact their friends? If this item was purchased in a private transaction, then you have no comeback really, unless you used eBay. If was a professional sale, then you deal with them through official channels. You've drawn this upon yourself IMO.

This is not a Consumer Issue. It is a matter for a legal professional at this stage. I will move this to the Legal Discussion forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is closed with advice to visit a solicitor.

dudara

This reply is completely unhelpful and why would you state that you wouldnt be surprised if it is closed....isnt that what boards is for discussion???

I posted on his facebook because he was refusing to return the money he scammed from me and i wanted to shame him into returning it...

MarkAnthony

jezzer wrote: »

This reply is completely unhelpful and why would you state that you wouldnt be surprised if it is closed....isnt that what boards is for discussion???

I posted on his facebook because he was refusing to return the money he scammed from me and i wanted to shame him into returning it...

Well not wanting to speak for Dudara or any other mod but it wasn't a consumer issue and frankly although I don't really have an issue with self help other do. Frankly it's not unhelpful in the least; bit sharp but I think you've declared open season on yourself there mucker.

It may be closed here because you're OP is framed in such a way as to encourage people to give you legal advice which is prohibited in this forum, basically because people be stupid they do (I wanted to get in on this joke) and follow it.

Anyway, defamation, I don't really see it happening to be honest but who knows; if it does seek legal advice other than that block the person and get on with life.

Pat Mustard

davo10 wrote: »

He's full of BS. In order to prove that you defamed him, he would have to show that what you posted was incorrect, therefore having to prove that he fulfilled his part of the transaction. He didn't and there is a police record of your complaint against him.

First, I assume that this legal advice was posted before the thread was transferred to this forum. Legal advice is not allowed here.

Secondly, this legal advice is incorrect. In an action for defamation, there is a presumption that the statement is false. The defendant has to establish a defence of truth.

Look at the definition of 'defamatory statement' in the definitions section of the 2009 Act:]

“ 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 somebody makes a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, they have made a defamatory statement. If matters proceed to litigation, it will be up to that person to show the truth of that statement.

If a defendant in a defamation action cannot show the truth of his statement, he had better have his cheque book handy.

davo10

The Mustard wrote: »

First, I assume that this legal advice was posted before the thread was transferred to this forum. Legal advice is not allowed here.

Secondly, this legal advice is incorrect. In an action for defamation, there is a presumption that the statement is false. The defendant has to establish a defence of truth.

Look at the definition of 'defamatory statement' in the definitions section of the 2009 Act:]


If somebody makes a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, they have made a defamatory statement. If matters proceed to litigation, it will be up to that person to show the truth of that statement.

If a defendant in a defamation action cannot show the truth of his statement, he had better have his cheque book handy.

So, the fact that there is no proof the item was delivered, that there was only a partial refund and that a police complaint was made is not enough proof that the item was not delivered, only a partial refund was made and there was a complaint made to the police? What additional proof would be needed in your opinion and do you think under the circumstances, that the vendor would initiate proceedings?

jezzer

Thanks for the feedback guys, the vendor himself admitted via email that nothing was sent, that the whole thing was his fault....i filed a police complaint before the partial refund was given, the police going to his house was the reason for this...i have thousands of emails going back and forth to him whereby the lies told by him is astounding...practically everyday he said he would send the money...but came back with the most ridiculous excuses.... i called him some names in email communication to rile him into returning the money....i posted on his facebook account that people are to beware of him as he took my money and wont return it....i didnt say anything that was untrue, i called him a scammer because thats what he is and i have the police report to state this.....also he is in a different jurisdiction than me, surely the cost for him to try and bring me to court would be enormous? also being in a different jurisdiction surely this would be difficult?

FreudianSlippers

davo10 wrote: »

So, the fact that there is no proof the item was delivered, that there was only a partial refund and that a police complaint was made is not enough proof that the item was not delivered, only a partial refund was made and there was a complaint made to the police? What additional proof would be needed in your opinion and do you think under the circumstances, that the vendor would initiate proceedings?

As has been pointed out a few times, the statement is presumed false and it is for the defendant to raise a defence. They are perfectly entitled to raise truth as a defence and present that evidence.

The question was whether the "vendor" has a case; the answer is that defamation is actionable per se, so yes he does.
Does one in this example have a wide option of defences available to them under the Defamation Act 2009: yes.
Is it financially viable for this person to bring defamation proceedings: how are we supposed to know?

To go any further and to start discussing evidence and chances of success would be legal advice and is (correctly) prohibited on boards. If I were OP I'd put it out of my mind, keep all of the evidence and wait and see. Sure, he only really has a year to sue anyway.

jezzer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As has been pointed out a few times, the statement is presumed false and it is for the defendant to raise a defence. They are perfectly entitled to raise truth as a defence and present that evidence.

The question was whether the "vendor" has a case; the answer is that defamation is actionable per se, so yes he does.
Does one in this example have a wide option of defences available to them under the Defamation Act 2009: yes.
Is it financially viable for this person to bring defamation proceedings: how are we supposed to know?

To go any further and to start discussing evidence and chances of success would be legal advice and is (correctly) prohibited on boards. If I were OP I'd put it out of my mind, keep all of the evidence and wait and see. Sure, he only really has a year to sue anyway.

thanks for the help....a year? as in a year from now to sue me?

in terms of being financially viable, he is refusing to return to me a 3 figure sum....is it really viable to bring me to court if he has an issue refunding a 3 figure sum?

also in terms of logistics and jurisdiction, how could he even bring me to court given he is in the uk and I in ireland?

FreudianSlippers

jezzer wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback guys, the vendor himself admitted via email that nothing was sent, that the whole thing was his fault....i filed a police complaint before the partial refund was given, the police going to his house was the reason for this...i have thousands of emails going back and forth to him whereby the lies told by him is astounding...practically everyday he said he would send the money...but came back with the most ridiculous excuses.... i called him some names in email communication to rile him into returning the money....i posted on his facebook account that people are to beware of him as he took my money and wont return it....i didnt say anything that was untrue, i called him a scammer because thats what he is and i have the police report to state this.....also he is in a different jurisdiction than me, surely the cost for him to try and bring me to court would be enormous? also being in a different jurisdiction surely this would be difficult?

If I were him I wouldn't sue you anywhere. It's not prohibitively expensive to sue in either jurisdiction unless you lose.

I would always sue in Ireland if the tort were committed on the internet (although in this case even under standard - i.e. non internet - tort rules he could/should sue in Ireland). England/Wales need to prove special damage to bring a defamation claim these days.

FreudianSlippers

jezzer wrote: »

thanks for the help....a year? as in a year from now to sue me?

in terms of being financially viable, he is refusing to return to me a 3 figure sum....is it really viable to bring me to court if he has an issue refunding a 3 figure sum?

also in terms of logistics and jurisdiction, how could he even bring me to court given he is in the uk and I in ireland?

In Ireland the statute of limitations is 1 year from the date of the tort (so the date of your facebook post) which is extendible to a maximum of 2 years (which isn't as easy as people make it out to be. Well, ok... it's not exactly the most difficult thing ever, but that's neither here nor there). It's different in England & Wales, but can't remember off the top of my head.

Generally one sues where the defendant is domiciled or where the tort took place. Online is a bit different due to the ECJ rulings in E-Date Advertising and Martinez - it allows for plaintiffs to sue basically anywhere in the world (oversimplification for brevity); most people choose Ireland due to the plaintiff-friendly nature of defamation here.

Unless the guy is a lawyer or has some lawyer friend, he's going to need a solicitor. I can't guess whether he will or wont sue.

jezzer

ok, thanks for your help....i imagine it would not make sense financially for him to try and sue me for defamation as i have a police report stating that he scammed me and i have testimonials from others who he scammed as well

Pat Mustard

Did you pay by credit card? If so, you could check to see if there is insurance on that credit card or if can you dispute the transaction with your credit card company.

Uno my Uno.

davo10 wrote: »

So, the fact that there is no proof the item was delivered, that there was only a partial refund and that a police complaint was made is not enough proof that the item was not delivered, only a partial refund was made and there was a complaint made to the police? What additional proof would be needed in your opinion and do you think under the circumstances, that the vendor would initiate proceedings?

Calling someone a "scammer" or con artist or similar is to accuse them of dishonesty, none of what you have outlined above actually proves dishonesty per se. It's a tricky judgment call for a defendant to make.

There are complex EU rules on Jurisdiction in relation to Defamation and the awards that can be made in such cases. The UK is renowned for being the Jurisdiction of choice for people taking defamation cases because the law there favors the plaintiff.

Its also worth mentioning that the potential award in a defamation case would not necessarily be related to any initial debt or cause of the dispute. I am familiar with one recent internet defamation case, not entirely unlike this one where the Judge made a "minimal" award of €10,000.

jezzer

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Calling someone a "scammer" or con artist or similar is to accuse them of dishonesty, none of what you have outlined above actually proves dishonesty per se. It's a tricky judgment call for a defendant to make.

There are complex EU rules on Jurisdiction in relation to Defamation and the awards that can be made in such cases. The UK is renowned for being the Jurisdiction of choice for people taking defamation cases because the law there favors the plaintiff.

Its also worth mentioning that the potential award in a defamation case would not necessarily be related to any initial debt or cause of the dispute. I am familiar with one recent internet defamation case, not entirely unlike this one where the Judge made a "minimal" award of €10,000.

But I have proof that the vendor is a scammer including testimonials from others he scammed and the police report, he took my money and tried to keep it, this is fraud and he practically admitted it

Oryx

jezzer wrote: »

But I have proof that the vendor is a scammer including testimonials from others he scammed and the police report, he took my money and tried to keep it, this is fraud and he practically admitted it

He can still take you to court if he chooses, and you would use all that in your defence.

FreudianSlippers

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Calling someone a "scammer" or con artist or similar is to accuse them of dishonesty, none of what you have outlined above actually proves dishonesty per se. It's a tricky judgment call for a defendant to make.

Agreed.

There are complex EU rules on Jurisdiction in relation to Defamation and the awards that can be made in such cases. The UK is renowned for being the Jurisdiction of choice for people taking defamation cases because the law there favors the plaintiff.

From my experience in plaintiff actions: Ireland > England/Wales & N.I. > Southern Europe > Scotland and Northern Europe. The US is somewhere between England/Wales/N.I. and Southern European countries - really depends on how badly you were defamed in the US.

Its also worth mentioning that the potential award in a defamation case would not necessarily be related to any initial debt or cause of the dispute. I am familiar with one recent internet defamation case, not entirely unlike this one where the Judge made a "minimal" award of €10,000.

There's little doubt in my mind on the facts that this is a Circuit Court jurisdiction case unless the seller is some highly rated hot-shot ebayer.

Uno my Uno.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed.


From my experience in plaintiff actions: Ireland > England/Wales & N.I. > Southern Europe > Scotland and Northern Europe. The US is somewhere between England/Wales/N.I. and Southern European countries - really depends on how badly you were defamed in the US.

I'm not overly familiar with the situation in the UK so I'm more than happy to accept your assessment. I think perhaps I am mainly thinking of reports of so called defamation tourism by US companies seeking to avail aof favorable UK laws for Plaintiff action.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's little doubt in my mind on the facts that this is a Circuit Court jurisdiction case unless the seller is some highly rated hot-shot ebayer.

I agree, however the case I referred to was also a Circuit Court case. I am sure that in the mind of the Defendant it was a minor matter that only involved something posted on the internet. The Plaintiff disagreed and it cost the Defendant in excess of €30,000 when including the award and costs. That's a significant amount of money for any private individual. I'm not suggesting the cases are the same, they aren't, but I am making the point that even so called minimal awards in the CC can be expensive and that people should use facebook and social media with caution.

jezzer

yes but this guy has a reputation for scam tactics and is a two bit chancer and pathological liar, if he scams for a few hundred i cant see how he could take legal action at a potential cost of thousands...as far as i am concerned i didnt say anything that wasnt true and can be backed up by other individuals

Oryx

jezzer wrote: »

yes but this guy has a reputation for scam tactics and is a two bit chancer and pathological liar, if he scams for a few hundred i cant see how he could take legal action at a potential cost of thousands...as far as i am concerned i didnt say anything that wasnt true and can be backed up by other individuals

What if he decides youre worth a few grand to him?

jezzer

but surely he would have to risk the legal costs and with his background would it be worth it? he is also under the impression that i wouldnt have anything and therefore not worth pursuing...on that, just say for example i got slapped with a 10k fine and actually had no way of paying it, what then?

jezzer

also, what if i was to pack up and leave tomorrow for australia? he dosnt even know where i live, only ever had email communication, facebook messaged him off a secondary account.....

Uno my Uno.

jezzer wrote: »

yes but this guy has a reputation for scam tactics and is a two bit chancer and pathological liar, if he scams for a few hundred i cant see how he could take legal action at a potential cost of thousands...as far as i am concerned i didnt say anything that wasnt true and can be backed up by other individuals

You can say all of this and it may well be true but if someone takes a defamation case it is for the defendant, ie the person who made the statement, to prove what they said was true.

jezzer

yes but if this is all easily provable surely its not work taking the risk to sue me?

jezzer

plus he still hasn't returned the money he owes me

Oryx

jezzer wrote: »

plus he still hasn't returned the money he owes me

Thats a completely separate issue to any defamation case.

Uno my Uno.

jezzer wrote: »

yes but if this is all easily provable surely its not work taking the risk to sue me?

Maybe not or maybe it is. Its not possible for anyone here to tell you how good a defence you have or not but things are rarely as simple or Black and white as they seem. (#thedress).

Eg that police report may not prove anything. It could be the case that all it says is that the police called to his house and told him a complaint had been made, cautioned him and told him he should return any monies. That would be a good bit short of proving fraud.

jezzer

unreal, the law is very scewed

jezzer

what if i can uncontactable? he doesnt have my address only my email, what if i packed up and went to australia tomorrow, how would he even find me to bring me to court

FreudianSlippers

jezzer wrote: »

unreal, the law is very scewed

It's not really. You're expected to be able to back up your statements if they tend to injure a person's reputation and/or livelihood.

jezzer wrote: »

what if i can uncontactable? he doesnt have my address only my email, what if i packed up and went to australia tomorrow, how would he even find me to bring me to court

If you're willing to move over it I'm betting there is more to the story.

In any event, it's pretty easy to get your ID from the court by using your IP address.

jezzer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not really. You're expected to be able to back up your statements if they tend to injure a person's reputation and/or livelihood.


If you're willing to move over it I'm betting there is more to the story.

In any event, it's pretty easy to get your ID from the court by using your IP address.

Of course I can back up my statements, I wouldnt have bothered calling him a scammed otherwise....not willing to move over, just using it as an example to make a point....how can they use my IP to get my address if i used multiple computers none registered to me? how much would it cost to go to the hassle of getting a court to track me via my IP...

Oryx

You keep asking could he sue you and the short answer to that is yes. Whether he will is another question completely but can he? Yes. All the obstacles you mention can be overcome. Asking IF he will try is pretty pointless. How can we know?

jezzer

Oryx wrote: »

You keep asking could he sue you and the short answer to that is yes. Whether he will is another question completely but can he? Yes. All the obstacles you mention can be overcome. Asking IF he will try is pretty pointless. How can we know?

no, i'm not asking if, i am trying to gauge how difficult it would be and if it really would be worth his while...

just say right here in your reply you said something bad about me, i could sue you for that, but would i really do that? the hassle, the cost, the time etc....surely it all adds up to the fact that it would be more hassle that its worth for me to sue you...

FreudianSlippers

jezzer wrote: »

no, i'm not asking if, i am trying to gauge how difficult it would be and if it really would be worth his while...

just say right here in your reply you said something bad about me, i could sue you for that, but would i really do that? the hassle, the cost, the time etc....surely it all adds up to the fact that it would be more hassle that its worth for me to sue you...

I might... but then again, I find that to be great craic.

jezzer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I might... but then again, I find that to be great craic.

but surely a solicitor would advise not to bother pursuing it due to costs, time etc...

Uno my Uno.

jezzer wrote: »

but surely a solicitor would advise not to bother pursuing it due to costs, time etc...

Yes but that is only advice, people disregard their solicitor's advice all the time (and usually create more work for Solicitors in the process). Ultimately Solicitors act on the instructions they get from their clients, not the advice they give their clients.

FreudianSlippers

jezzer wrote: »

but surely a solicitor would advise not to bother pursuing it due to costs, time etc...

Maybe, but some people are very determined.

As I said earlier:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If I were [you] I'd put it out of my mind, keep all of the evidence and wait and see.

jezzer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Maybe, but some people are very determined.

As I said earlier:

ok thanks

Oryx

jezzer wrote: »

no, i'm not asking if, i am trying to gauge how difficult it would be and if it really would be worth his while...

just say right here in your reply you said something bad about me, i could sue you for that, but would i really do that? the hassle, the cost, the time etc....surely it all adds up to the fact that it would be more hassle that its worth for me to sue you...

If you were to say something defamatory about me or anyone here you could get banned from the site. Boards could get pulled into any legal action, so its something they are very careful about. Its taken seriously because the risk of it being worth someones while.

jezzer

Oryx wrote: »

If you were to say something defamatory about me or anyone here you could get banned from the site. Boards could get pulled into any legal action, so its something they are very careful about. Its taken seriously because the risk of it being worth someones while.

ah here, i cant ever see things going that far....the legal costs would be too much....on facebook people post insulting stuff all the time and on twitter to celebs, if it was that easy to bring someone to court for defamation they would be doing it several times a day and cleaning up.....

FreudianSlippers

jezzer wrote: »

ah here, i cant ever see things going that far....the legal costs would be too much....on facebook people post insulting stuff all the time and on twitter to celebs, if it was that easy to bring someone to court for defamation they would be doing it several times a day and cleaning up.....

I don't think you understand defamation. Insults don't fall under the heading, let's just start with that.

You'd be surprised at how many defamation cases are brought in this country on a daily basis and how many letters sites like Facebook and Boards get.

Ara, but what do I know I only do this as my job. :rolleyes:

Uno my Uno.

jezzer wrote: »

ah here, i cant ever see things going that far....the legal costs would be too much....on facebook people post insulting stuff all the time and on twitter to celebs, if it was that easy to bring someone to court for defamation they would be doing it several times a day and cleaning up.....

Insulting someone or using abusive language towards them isn't defamation, it is referred to a s "common abuse" and a person can't be sued for it. Although depending on the language used or the frequency of the abuse someone could be prosecuted and even imprisoned for it.

Accusing someone of dishonesty eg, being a scammer is entirely different from telling a celeb on twitter that their hair looks silly or that they have the wrong body type for an outfit, even if the words used are more "adult" than those I chose.;)

jezzer

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Insulting someone or using abusive language towards them isn't defamation, it is referred to a s "common abuse" and a person can't be sued for it. Although depending on the language used or the frequency of the abuse someone could be prosecuted and even imprisoned for it.

Accusing someone of dishonesty eg, being a scammer is entirely different from telling a celeb on twitter that their hair looks silly or that they have the wrong body type for an outfit, even if the words used are more "adult" than those I chose.;)

its all madness

Uno my Uno.

jezzer wrote: »

its all madness

Its not mad at all, in fact its the law.

jezzer

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Its not mad at all, in fact its the law.

yes the law is mad, very much geared towards making up solicitors and barristers

234

jezzer wrote: »

yes the law is mad, very much geared towards making up solicitors and barristers

I was surprised to learn that all the solicitors and barristers I know are in fact "made up." Time to find some real friends I guess

MarkAnthony

234 wrote: »

I was surprised to learn that all the solicitors and barristers I know are in fact "made up." Time to find some real friends I guess

I like to pretend, may be he means that.

I just put on a black duvet cover and a blonde wig and say m'lord a lot. I think it raised a few eyebrows when I turned up to my company law exam.