Is this a winning Defamation case?

CandyButcher

Recently I had my contract terminated due to cost reasons. How my manager handled it was quite humiliating, after I was told this in the office he then told me I had 20 minutes to pack my stuff as he followed me around to my desk watched me pack my things and walked me out to the main door as if I was a common Crinimal. Now everyone in the office assumes I was caught doing something terrible which warranted being marched out like that.

I have a barrister I know telling me I have a very good defamation case, as a woman in the office has text from multiple different people asking what “ happened to me I heard he was marched out so suddenly “ there was also a witness but I dont know if he would stand in court as a witness

Im looking for any opinions out there weather as to If I actually have a defamation case or not just by what ive mentioned?

I would love to win them in court for reputational damage, but the gamble of if I lose id have to pay their legal fees is what’s turning me off the whole thing

MarkR

CandyButcher wrote: »

Recently I had my contract terminated due to cost reasons. How my manager handled it was quite humiliating, after I was told this in the office he then told me I had 20 minutes to pack my stuff as he followed me around to my desk watched me pack my things and walked me out to the the main door as if I was a common Crinimal. Now everyone in the office assumes I was caught doing something terrible which warranted being marched out like that.

I have a barrister I know telling me I have a very good defamation case, as a woman in the office has text from multiple different people asking what “ happened to me I heard he was marched out so suddenly “ there was also a witness but I dont know if he would stand in court as a witness

Im looking for any opinions out there weather as to If I actually have a defamation case or not just by what ive mentioned?

I would love to win them in court for reputational damage, but the gamble of if I lose id have to pay their legal fees is what’s turning me off the whole thing

Defamation means they have to say or publish something untrue and damaging, but they didn't say or publish anything. Check your employee contract to see if your termination was handled correctly.

Caranica

Very unlikely to succeed. That's common practice for departing employees anywhere people have access to sensitive information. There's a difference between supposition and defamation.

Defamation cases are very difficult to prove, as I learned when I asked here. I had video of clear defamation but the advice I got was to leave it. Yes I was fuming over what happened to me but I did get over it!

You were treated poorly, but that doesn't necessarily amount to defamation.

Who are you planning on taking a case against?
Those potentially spreading untrue rumours?

Mjolnir

Caranica wrote: »

Very unlikely to succeed. That's common practice for departing employees anywhere people have access to sensitive information. There's a difference between supposition and defamation.

Defamation cases are very difficult to prove, as I learned when I asked here. I had video of clear defamation but the advice I got was to leave it. Yes I was fuming over what happened to me but I did get over it!

I'd agree I've been in jobs were the manager walked you to your desk and out regardless of the way you left.
Defamation is a bloody mare. I do love the exception to defamtion though it's bloody brilliant.

Op you were escorted off the premises, pretty common as long as they didn't announce, publish, proclaim or otherwise something you'd be facing a massive mountain.
Speak to a solicitor if you're actually considering it be yea you'll have a giant pain in your a$$ over it.

GM228

MarkR wrote: »

Defamation means they have to say or publish something untrue and damaging

It does not have to be untrue, just damaging.

Back to the OP, based on what you say if you have a barrister friend saying you have a good case, I say you need a new barrister friend who actually knows what they are talking about.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

It does not have to be untrue, just damaging.

Doesn't it have to be false/untrue to be defamation. Revealling trade/company secrets would be damaging, but not defamation.

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't it have to be false/untrue to be defamation.

No. Defamation definition:

Defamation Act 2009 wrote:

“defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society

However:

16.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “ defence of truth ”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects.

In other words, the truth of a statement doesn't affect whether it's defamatory or not, but if a defendant can prove it's true, that can be a defence in court.

Note that it is not an absolute defence: The statement "X doesn't beat his wife anymore" can be true, defamatory, and grounds for an award against the defendant.

Ash.J.Williams

CandyButcher wrote: »

Recently I had my contract terminated due to cost reasons. How my manager handled it was quite humiliating, after I was told this in the office he then told me I had 20 minutes to pack my stuff as he followed me around to my desk watched me pack my things and walked me out to the main door as if I was a common Crinimal. Now everyone in the office assumes I was caught doing something terrible which warranted being marched out like that.

I have a barrister I know telling me I have a very good defamation case, as a woman in the office has text from multiple different people asking what “ happened to me I heard he was marched out so suddenly “ there was also a witness but I dont know if he would stand in court as a witness

Im looking for any opinions out there weather as to If I actually have a defamation case or not just by what ive mentioned?

I would love to win them in court for reputational damage, but the gamble of if I lose id have to pay their legal fees is what’s turning me off the whole thing

Looks similar to getting accused in the wrong publicly which is defamation

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

Note that it is not an absolute defence: The statement "X doesn't beat his wife anymore" can be true, defamatory, and grounds for an award against the defendant.

Interesting. Didn't think anything true could be the cause for defamation. Thanks.
Edit. Thinking further on the above example. If a person had beaten his wife wasn't that his reputation... a wife beater. Is it that it may not have been widely known?

Lenar3556

CandyButcher wrote: »

Recently I had my contract terminated due to cost reasons. How my manager handled it was quite humiliating, after I was told this in the office he then told me I had 20 minutes to pack my stuff as he followed me around to my desk watched me pack my things and walked me out to the main door as if I was a common Crinimal. Now everyone in the office assumes I was caught doing something terrible which warranted being marched out like that.

I have a barrister I know telling me I have a very good defamation case, as a woman in the office has text from multiple different people asking what “ happened to me I heard he was marched out so suddenly “ there was also a witness but I dont know if he would stand in court as a witness

Im looking for any opinions out there weather as to If I actually have a defamation case or not just by what ive mentioned?

I would love to win them in court for reputational damage, but the gamble of if I lose id have to pay their legal fees is what’s turning me off the whole thing

You should take some advice from a solicitor having regard to the full facts. Defamation - I don’t think i’d go there.
And if you were a contractor engaged under a contract for services as opposed to an employee, that significantly weakens your position. But this is something that you should look at with your solicitor.

F1ngers

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Looks similar to getting accused in the wrong publicly which is defamation

How?
He was fired in the managers office and then escorted to their desk and off the premises.

As the op stated their manager "watched", how can you defame someone by watching them.

GM228

28064212 wrote: »

No. Defamation definition:
However:In other words, the truth of a statement doesn't affect whether it's defamatory or not, but if a defendant can prove it's true, that can be a defence in court.

Note that it is not an absolute defence: The statement "X doesn't beat his wife anymore" can be true, defamatory, and grounds for an award against the defendant.

It is important to note there is a difference between a defamatory statement and an action in tort for defamation, the defence of truth applies to the latter only.

You could for example take an action for so called simple conspiracy for a truthful but defamatory statement.

Here's a previous thread we had on these very issues:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023389

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

Thinking further on the above example. If a person had beaten his wife wasn't that his reputation... a wife beater. Is it that it may not have been widely known?

No, in the example, X has never beaten his wife, and is not known to have ever beaten his wife. The statement "X doesn't beat his wife anymore" is technically true on its own, but defamatory because it contains the implication that X did beat his wife in the past

maestroamado

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/workplace-relations-commission-how-new-system-works-1.2443276

Have a look at above.... i also copied as may be difficult to access...

Workplace Relations Commission: how new system works
The one-stop shop will now deal with all employment-related complaints
Fri, Nov 27, 2015, 09:00
Gordon Smith

Most people don’t lodge their work-related employment claims immediately, but the clock starts ticking from the time of the incident, not when the complaint is made. Unless workers have a very good reason for a delay, six months is going to be a hard deadline in most cases
Most people don’t lodge their work-related employment claims immediately, but the clock starts ticking from the time of the incident, not when the complaint is made. Unless workers have a very good reason for a delay, six months is going to be a hard deadline in most cases


The creation of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has been called the biggest change to industrial relations and employment rights in 70 years of the State.

On October 1st, the commission came into being as an independent, statutory body under the Workplace Relations Act 2015. It takes on the roles and functions that had previously been carried out by the National Employment Rights Authority, the Equality Tribunal, the Labour Relations Commission and the Rights Commissioners Service, as well as the first-instance functions of the Employment Appeals Tribunal which oversees complaints and referrals. “It’s designed effectively to create a one-stop shop for all employment claims that were previously dealt with by a multitude of different bodies. All claims relating to pay, holidays or working time will be dealt with by the WRC,” says Patrick Walshe, partner and employment law expert at commercial law firm Philip Lee.

Why has it been created?
It led to an infrastructure that was badly in need of reform. The five separate organisations sometimes had overlapping objectives. Employment-related appeals frequently fell under multiple categories, which led to unnecessary duplication of functions and a complex maze to navigate for workers. Walshe recalls one case last year that involved several different statutory claims, including some nonpayment of wages and holiday pay not made. “That resulted in a farcical situation where half the claims were appealed to the Labour Court and half to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. You can’t justify a messy, complicated system like that,” he says.

Tom O’Driscoll, head of the legal rights unit at trade union Siptu, likens the old system to a map of the London Underground.

“There were so many forums and overlapping pieces of legislation. And you had a lack of operational consistency: some processes were more formal than others, and they had different rules of evidence. The Employment Appeals Tribunal was adversarial whereas the Equality Tribunal was more inquisitorial,” he says.

Long delays were also common. Legal experts say a case in the Equality Tribunal could sometimes take longer than a case in the High Court, and the trade union movement was unhappy with what it called “excessive” waiting periods of up to two years for some cases to be resolved.

How will the commission work?
“The WRC is basically a court of first instance, a single hearing. At the end of that hearing, if you’re not happy with the decision or the employer isn’t happy with the decision, you can appeal it to the Labour Court, which will now act as a three-member court of appeal,” says Walshe.

How will workers access the system?
However, completing this form is tricky as people must tick the appropriate box for one or more of the statutes that apply to their grievance. That’s because, although the commission simplifies the institutional industrial relations framework, the underlying law remains the same.

“You still need to know precisely what your claim is. One of the potential downsides for employees is that if you’re a little too hasty and you don’t make the right claim, the Act sets fairly strict deadlines for taking claims – in general you’ve got six months. If you’ve ticked the wrong box and it takes a while to come to hearing, you may be out of time for the claim you want to take,” Deegan says.

Most people don’t lodge their claim immediately, but the clock starts ticking from the time of the incident, not when the complaint is made. Unless workers have a very good reason for a delay, six months is going to be a hard deadline in most cases.

Will it cost money to take a case?
The UK government did introduce fees for taking employment claims in a widely criticised move, and it led to the number of cases plummeting.

There are plans for a €300 fee for an appeal to the Labour Court in specific cases where the party appealing has not turned up to a hearing at the commission.

Will it be faster than the old system?
“Speed has to be crucial because justice delayed is justice denied. We need hearings fairly quickly from the time when they’re first referred and we need a quick appeals process to the Labour Court. There’s an emphasis on early resolution and on mediation and we’re in favour of that,” says Siptu’s O’Driscoll.

Removing the need to take multiple cases should also reduce the costs involved, which is good news for everyone.

“I think it’s positive for both employees and employers, because the delays inherent the system were an injustice in themselves. Having one first instance hearing and appeal makes it quicker and cheaper. It think it comes down to those two very precious commodities: time and money,” says Deegan.

Behind the scenes, the commission will also use new IT systems for scheduling and case management to maximise the availability of adjudication officers and mediators. The commission expects to make “considerable savings, both in time and in costs” through these systems.

Have there been any cases in practice before the commission yet?
For example, the Employment Appeals Tribunal will continue to operate until it deals with the cases that were before it when this Act came into effect and will only then be dissolved. In a blog written on October 1st, HR consultant Seán McHugh of Bright Contracts said the EAT had about 3,500 cases outstanding. “The average waiting time for a hearing before the EAT is currently 63 weeks. In some areas, it is significantly longer,” he said.

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

No, in the example, X has never beaten his wife, and is not known to have ever beaten his wife. The statement "X doesn't beat his wife anymore" is technically true on its own, but defamatory because it contains the implication that X did beat his wife in the past

But the implication is either true or not. If he did beat his wife previously could he still suffer defamation? If its a case he did not beat his wife then the statement is untrue and defamation.



The above is just me trying to get my ahead around it rather than disagreeing with you.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But the implication is either true or not. If he did beat his wife previously could he still suffer defamation? If its a case he did not beat his wife then the statement is untrue and defamation.



The above is just me trying to get my ahead around it rather than disagreeing with you.

A statement which is true or not can still be defamatory, in an action in tort for defamation you can raise the defence of truth, but you need to prove on the balance of probabilities it is true, so failure to raise the defence or successfully prove the defence can result in a successful action in tort for defamation even for a true statement.

No such defence however is available (even if the statement is true) in an action for so called simple conspiracy.

maestroamado

28064212 wrote: »

No, in the example, X has never beaten his wife, and is not known to have ever beaten his wife. The statement "X doesn't beat his wife anymore" is technically true on its own, but defamatory because it contains the implication that X did beat his wife in the past

This comment is for me a perfect example of the kinda society we have become... It makes me sick...

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

A statement which is true or not can still be defamatory, in an action in tort for defamation you can raise the defence of truth, but you need to prove on the balance of probabilities it is true, so failure to raise the defence or successfully prove the defence can result in a successful action in tort for defamation even for a true statement.

So, it being true is not enough, it needs to be proved true. Is that correct?

In which case in law the word true/truth takes on a different meaning to general understanding. Again, just trying to get my own head around it.

Stateofyou

Sounds more like a case for unfair dismissal, in the absence of fair procedures. Did you have at least a year on the job?

Eggs For Dinner

Stateofyou wrote: »

Sounds more like a case for unfair dismissal, in the absence of fair procedures. Did you have at least a year on the job?

Exactly, unless you can find texts from former colleagues stating something libellous and take an action against them

Lenar3556

Other posts suggested a contractor / self employed arrangement.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

So, it being true is not enough, it needs to be proved true. Is that correct?

A statement about Mr X is defamatory if it causes people to think less of Mr X.

So if I say "Mr X used to beat his wife, but doesn't any more", that will tend to make people think less of Mr X. I have defamed Mr X. That's an obviously defamatory statement.

If Mr X sues me for defamation, I can plead the defence that what I said was true. This wouldn't mean that the statement is not defamatory. It's still defamatory; people still think less of Mr X after hearing it. It just means that I have a defence to an action for defamation. Although I have defamed Mr X he cannot recover damages from me, because I was quite justified in defaming him; he did beat his wife.

But, since it's a defence that I am raising, the onus is on me to satisfy the jury that what I said was true. They don't assume it's true simply because I say so; why would they take my word over Mr X's?.

Deleted User wrote: »

In which case in law the word true/truth takes on a different meaning to general understanding. Again, just trying to get my own head around it.

No, it means exactly what you think it means. The statement "Mr X used to beat his wife" is either true or false, in the ordinary understanding of those words.

But in a courtroom the question is, how can we know whether it's true or false? Somebody has to put evidence before the court, one way or the other. And, in a court case, the person who has to put evidence before the court that it's true is the person who needs it to be true in order to win his case. If he doesn't put evidence before the court that it's true, the court doesn't know that it's true, and he loses his case.

So, I'm the one who needs to show that what I said about Mr X is true.

beauf

Caranica wrote: »

Very unlikely to succeed. That's common practice for departing employees anywhere people have access to sensitive information. ...

It's basically this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn2Xf9hAFcE&ab_channel=Weyland

I've seen it worse. All called into a canteen told there would be voluntary redundancies and non voluntary redundancies, One guy got back to his desk to find security there and a box, escorted to the door and gone. Guy was distraught. People were raging about it. I took voluntary about a month later, couldn't get out the door quick enough, but they made me work my notice. Which made no sense to be paranoid about an admin guy and not about IT guy with access to a ton of stuff. But that be just down to different line managers, mine looking to get blood out of stone.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

But that be just down to different line managers, mine looking to get blood out of stone.

I'm confused, which management approach are you criticising

But, it does seem like industry customs and practice and so 'regular' as to, in itself, be normal and therefor one cannot complain about being singled out. Has it ever been challenged ?

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm confused, which management approach are you criticising

But, it does seem like industry customs and practice and so 'regular' as to, in itself, be normal and therefor one cannot complain about being singled out. Has it ever been challenged ?

You'd think it wouldn't be down to line to decide company policy. I know the difference when I'm asked to work out notice due to spite and when it's valid business need.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2012/nov/06/rubbing-salt-redundancy-wound

screamer

Not at all. Walking people to the door is common practise in a lot of workplaces, especially for sales departments. The manager will not say why that happened and everything others say is just speculation.
It’s hard to have it done to you, and trust me it isn’t nice to do it as a manager but it’s more common than you think. Hope you find a nice new job soon.

Stateofyou

screamer wrote: »

Not at all. Walking people to the door is common practise in a lot of workplaces, especially for sales departments. The manager will not say why that happened and everything others say is just speculation.
It’s hard to have it done to you, and trust me it isn’t nice to do it as a manager but it’s more common than you think. Hope you find a nice new job soon.

Last company I worked for let people go with dignity and practical support in moving forward. People even usually sent goodbye emails received by everyone who worked there. It wasn't made to feel like some dirty walk of shame on the way out (unless you were dismissed for gross misconduct, which only happened once in the years I worked there).

Treating people like criminals and humiliating them is ridiculous. Sorry, rant over.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

You'd think it wouldn't be down to line to decide company policy. I know the difference when I'm asked to work out notice due to spite and when it's valid business need.

Yours was a voluntary redundancy. You asked for it and they gave it to you. Win/Win. And, as far as we know, you didn't get the walked to the door treatment on your last day. Most people are expected to work their notice. I don't see any issue there.

coylemj

The problem with a prospective suit for defamation in the OP's situation is that the people who witnessed him being walked to the door were his work peers and none of them will be evaluating his CV and/or interviewing him for his next job.

So he would have an uphill if not impossible task in establishing reputational damage. His pride may have been hurt but I can't see that his future job prospects were affected in the slightest.

And if he (she?) has explained all of the events to a barrister who say there is a case, why the need to ask people in an anonynous forum for advice?

hullaballoo

The OP doesn't need to establish reputational damage. That's another common misunderstanding around defamation under Irish law. It looks like hair splitting but there is a big practical difference between running a case where you need to establish that there was a statement that "tends to injure a person's reputation" and one where you need to establish that there was a statement that was actually injurious.

However, there are other difficulties with reaching the threshold for an stateable defamation case, leaving aside any defences that might be available. One of the more basic elements of the tort is that there has to be a statement but I do not see any reference to a statement. That was actually picked up on in post #2 but because of the inaccuracy of some of the other things in that post, it appears to have been lost.

coylemj

hullaballoo wrote: »

The OP doesn't need to establish reputational damage.

In this case, what possible other 'injury' can he claim to have suffered?

Dublinensis

hullaballoo wrote: »

The OP doesn't need to establish reputational damage. That's another common misunderstanding around defamation under Irish law. It looks like hair splitting but there is a big practical difference between running a case where you need to establish that there was a statement that "tends to injure a person's reputation" and one where you need to establish that there was a statement that was actually injurious.

However, there are other difficulties with reaching the threshold for an stateable defamation case, leaving aside any defences that might be available. One of the more basic elements of the tort is that there has to be a statement but I do not see any reference to a statement. That was actually picked up on in post #2 but because of the inaccuracy of some of the other things in that post, it appears to have been lost.

The 2009 Act says that a "statement" includes inter alia "visual images, sounds, gestures and any other method of signifying meaning" so I wonder if there might be a plausible argument that this falls under that? Might the definition include situations where it was not intended to signify any meaning at all?

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yours was a voluntary redundancy. You asked for it and they gave it to you. Win/Win. And, as far as we know, you didn't get the walked to the door treatment on your last day. Most people are expected to work their notice. I don't see any issue there.

I wasn't making comparison between voluntary and involuntary redundancy,. I was making the point of inconsistency in the logic with regard to risk to the company.

There are rules around involuntary redundancy.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_procedures.html#l1f4da

UK link...https://www.ft.com/content/347dd598-8fe3-11e3-aee9-00144feab7de

beauf

The OP would be well advised to seek professional advice from an expert in this area.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

In this case, what possible other 'injury' can he claim to have suffered?

If his [former] co-workers think less of him, that's reputational damage. It doesn't cease to be so merely because they are not the people who will be making decisions about his next job application.

If somebody fights and wins a defamation case, then the question arises as to what amount of damages should be awarded. In that context it's important for the claimant to show the ways in which the damage to his reputation has caused him loss - e.g. that somebody believed the defamatory statement or imputation, and as a result withdrew a job offer, or failed to shorlist him, or whatever.

But that's all about the amount of damages, not about the question of whether he was defamed in the first place. If a claimant's object is to vindicate his reputation, the amount of damages he gets might be a secondary consideration to him.

3DataModem

An employers defence in this case could be that they do this to all resignations / departures / redundancies of a specific job type. These days it is generally for data security reasons (stealing data, customer lists, code, etc).

Peregrinus

Not all employers do this, but some do have a policy, with involuntary separation of staff who have access to confidential information, of handling it this way. Colleagues who see you being frogmarched out of the building with your possessions in a cardboard box may be shocked at this treatment, and they will know you have been involuntarily terminated, but they will generally also know that this is what happens in this firm when people in certain kinds of position get involuntarily terminated, and they shouldn't default to thinking that you must have been guilty of dishonest or worse.

Now, it could be that this is a new policy for the firm, or for some other reason you are the first person ever to have been treated in this way, and in that situation colleagues might think "Gosh! That's not normal! He must have done something really dreadful to get treated like this!" But, if you're running a defamation action (and I really, really would encourage you not to) you can't invite the court to assume that all your colleagues must have thought this, or probably thought this; you're going to have to put witnesses in the box who will say things like "I saw Joe being frogmarched out and I knew that wasn't normal. I thought 'He must have stolen money or data or something!'. We talked about it over lunch and we all felt the same.".

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

But that's all about the amount of damages, not about the question of whether he was defamed in the first place. If a claimant's object is to vindicate his reputation, the amount of damages he gets might be a secondary consideration to him.

That may be the case if you are thin-skinned and have deep pockets - Albert Reynolds v. The Sunday Times being a classic example. Reynolds considered he had won the case when the jury found in his favour but awarded him nothing. For which the judge substitued one penny.

But it illustrates why defamation is for rich people only. Because if the OP took a case and was awarded token damages, he would be left with a hefty legal bill. Assuming he declined the offer of a modest sum of money to go away.

Peregrinus

Not to be cynical, being thin-skinned and having deep pockets (and genuinely not caring how much it costs you) is one of only two reasons why anyone, ever, should bring a defamation case against anyone else, in any circumstances.

(The other is if you're very famous and your reputation is your livelihood, basically.)