Defamation

beaufoy

I reported a company to its official government regulator, and received a letter from the company's lawyer threatening to sue me for defamation of the owner of the company, and the company itself. In her letter she accused me of making outrageous untrue statements. Now the statements she was referring to were backed up (in the report letter) by non edited e mail evidence. In order for the "making of outrageous untrue statements" to have any validity it would have to follow that e mails must have been forged/edited, but she never brought into question the status of quality of the e mails.
I replied to her letter saying that if she sued me for defamation then I would counter sue for her defaming me (in the eyes of the court)calling me a liar despite all the evidence suggesting I am being truthful.
Now to my question:
According to my knowledge of Irish law accusations have to be published before they can become defamatory. Also there is the matter of privilege communications. Hence in my humble opinion she has no grounds for a defamation case, and unless the matter goes to court I have no grounds for a case against her.....Am I correct

NUTLEY BOY

Solicitor time.

coylemj

beaufoy wrote: »

I replied to her letter saying that if she sued me for defamation then I would counter sue for her defaming me (in the eyes of the court)calling me a liar despite all the evidence suggesting I am being truthful.

If you had a basis for such a claim, wouldn't it mean that everyone who was summonsed by a Garda for any kind of offence and who was found not guilty would be able to sue said Garda for defamation?

nuac

Mod
Leave open for general discussion, subject to forum rule on legal advice

beaufoy

I replied to her letter saying that if she sued me for defamation then I would counter sue for her defaming me (in the eyes of the court)calling me a liar despite all the evidence suggesting I am being truthful.

coylemj wrote: »

If you had a basis for such a claim, wouldn't it mean that everyone who was summonsed by a Garda for any kind of offence and who was found not guilty would be able to sue said Garda for defamation?

Strange ironic situation I mentioned in my op that my evidence was not edited. Then one of the people answering edited my op in order to make it look silly. Incidently if the police summonsed someone for an offence, even after being shown with evidence e mails, passport, ect ect that it was extremely unlikely that the accused person could possibly be guilty then yes in most countries the person found not guilty could sue the police

In the above paragraph I did a very slight edit

beaufoy

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Solicitor time.

Cannot go too deeply into the Solicitor idea (for fear of another defamation case against me) but I will say a solicitor who was paid by me made a few mistakes concerning this matter

Peregrinus

beaufoy wrote: »

I reported a company to its official government regulator, and received a letter from the company's lawyer threatening to sue me for defamation of the owner of the company, and the company itself. In her letter she accused me of making outrageous untrue statements. Now the statements she was referring to were backed up (in the report letter) by non edited e mail evidence. In order for the "making of outrageous untrue statements" to have any validity it would have to follow that e mails must have been forged/edited, but she never brought into question the status of quality of the e mails.
I replied to her letter saying that if she sued me for defamation then I would counter sue for her defaming me (in the eyes of the court)calling me a liar despite all the evidence suggesting I am being truthful.
Now to my question:
According to my knowledge of Irish law accusations have to be published before they can become defamatory. Also there is the matter of privilege communications. Hence in my humble opinion she has no grounds for a defamation case, and unless the matter goes to court I have no grounds for a case against her.....Am I correct

You have published statements about the company and, directly or by implication, about its directors and/or managers, to the regulator. That is sufficient "publication" for the purposes of a defamation action.

However its probably unlikely that a defamation action against you could succeed. You have (presumably) an honest belief in the truth of the statements that you made, you are not actuated by malice, and the matters you reported to the regulator were (presumably) things that were part of his proper concern as the regulator. So I think that you would have the defence of qualified privilege.

As for her statements about you, they were (so far as we know) made only to you. That's not sufficient publication to ground an action for defamation. You would have to show that she had made similar statements to a third party before you could run a defamation action.

If you or she did start proceedings (of any kind) and she repeated her allegations in the course of those proceedings, that would be publication, but she would have the defence of absolute privilege. Statements published in the course of court proceedings are absolutely privileged.