Please help.. libel or slander?

[happyhippy]

Theoretically yes. If the person you are suing has no assets, then in practice it can still cost a lot of money.

 

On the other hand, does a libel/slander case necessarily have to be heard in a full-scale court? If you were claiming, say, £2000 in damages could it be heard in small claims - or does the fact it's a defamation case rule that out?

 

Yes they do. It stops frivolous claims for a start.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I have been accused of something by someone via their solicitor.

I understand that libel is written and slander is spoken, but what i need to know is, if their solicitor records in writing what their client has spoken, does it then become libel or would it remain as slander, as it was initially spoken, then printed/written by ther solicitor?

 

Anyone who can give me genuine advise on this greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

If you are accused of saying something about the alleged victim, the accusation will be that you have slandered him. If you are accused of writing something about the victim, then the accusation will be that you have libelled him.

 

If you spoke it, then the remedy would be for slander. If you wrote it, the remedy would be for libel. - The fact that his solicitor may write it down (or not) has no effect on that.

 

1. Slander. In order to obtain a remedy for slander, the person who seeks the remedy has to prove that (s)he has suffered an actual damage (lost money) as a direct result of the alleged slander. Not always very easy to prove.

 

2. Libel. The victim doesn't have to prove financial loss in order to be awarded damages.

 

Any of the following could be used as a defence against a charge of libel:

 

1. That the statement was true.

2. That the statement was for comment on a matter of public interest.

3. That the statement did not refer to the alleged victim

4. That the statement's meaning was not defamatory

5. That you didn't say it anyway.

 

Are you a rich man, Joe? If I (Or somebody else) was to sue you and if I (or that somebody) was to win, that wouldn't be a lot of good if you didn't have enough money to pay me, would it? - There's not a lot of point in suing somebody who hasn't got any money to pay with.

 

What do you think would happen if you simply ignored the letter you have received? I suppose you might get another one. - And the person who hired the solicitor would be charged for another one.

 

I wonder how long that would go on for? (I'm just thinking on the keyboard.)

 

If you really think you could be in the wrong then you should take legal advice. It may cost you money (but on the other hand, it may save you money in the long run.)

 

Some people are very quick to get a 'solicitor's letter' written. I wonder how many of the subjects addressed in those letters ever end up before a court?

 

Some big firms are notorious for dragging out legal proceedings. Small claimants can't afford to go up against them because they can't afford to pay for all the correspondence and all the hearings etc.

 

I suppose it's all a matter of scale, really.

[Joe9T]

It is still slander, but the accusation written by them, may in itself be libellous .

 

Their solicitor has stated in writing the accusation made by their client in a letter.

[HeadingNorth]

All good advice, Rupert, but if I read the OP correctly, not directly suited to this thread. I think that the OP believes he has been slandered, and that the letter contains details of the slanderous comments.

 

 

Given what you say about slander requiring actual financial loss to have been incurred, there's probably no sense in him chasing it up. I didn't know about the difference on that score, only that one was written and the other spoken.

[Joe9T]

 

Are you a rich man, Joe? If I (Or somebody else) was to sue you and if I (or that somebody) was to win, that wouldn't be a lot of good if you didn't have enough money to pay me, would it? - There's not a lot of point in suing somebody who hasn't got any money to pay with.

 

The person making the accusations is at present getting legal aid, but will have a substantial amount of money to pay if I sued later.

 

I would use a "no win no fee" solicitor, if I decided to sue.

[Joe9T]

Has the damage got to be of a financial only to sue for slander? The damage will be in another way, but not financial.

[Rupert_Baehr]

It seems I misread it. - I thought Joe was saying he'd been accused of slandering somebody.

 

If a solicitor writes to him complaining on behalf of a client then that letter is neither a libel nor is it a slander. - It's simply a letter of complaint. It is a private communication (so there is no question of it having been 'published' verbally or in writing.)

 

As far as actions for slander go, I gather they are extremely rare.

[HeadingNorth]

It seems I misread it. - I thought Joe was saying he'd been accused of slandering somebody.

 

If a solicitor writes to him complaining on behalf of a client then that letter is neither a libel nor is it a slander. - It's simply a letter of complaint. It is a private communication (so there is no question of it having been 'published' verbally or in writing.)

 

 

Suppose - given that Joe9T is a DJ - that my solicitor sends him a letter saying that I have come to the conclusion he's a crook and a fraud and takes money off people then fails to turn up, and that I've been telling all and sundry not to book him for this reason.

 

Would that letter then be evidence that I have slandered him? (Even though it's not a libel in itself, being a private communication.)

 

 

(In case people google-searching for DJs come across this post and read it in isolation, I am not making any such claims, nor have I sent any such letter, nor will I do so. I don't even know the man.)

[Joe9T]

slander is notoriously difficult to prove BTW unless the 'damaging material' was said in front of witnesses who are prepared to stand up as witnesses and declare what they heard.

 

Well, I would have thought that the letter from their solicitor is enough proof of the slanderous comment, unless the person making the accusation in the first place to their solicitor, at a later date, decided to deny that they ever spoke the accusation to their solicitor and that their solicitor, say, had misunderstood them.

[Rupert_Baehr]

The person making the accusations is at present getting legal aid, but will have a substantial amount of money to pay if I sued later.

 

'Chickens' 'hatched' and 'count' are words which spring to mind. It's never a good idea to take legal action without thinking it through very carefully. Your opponent has no money now (you say he's on legal aid [for something else?])

 

There is no point in suing him if he can't pay.

 

I would use a "no win no fee" solicitor, if I decided to sue.

 

Provided you can get one. No solicitor (worth his salt) is going to take a frivolous action. If you've got a weak (or even non-existent) case; if your opponent hasn't got the means to pay and your solicitor was daft enough to waste the court's time with it, then the no-win-no-fee insurers would probably have something to say about it and the judge almost certainly would have quite a lot to say.

 

Has the damage got to be of a financial only to sue for slander? The damage will be in another way, but not financial.

 

Yes. Slander occurs when a defamatory statement has been made orally and without justification. The remedy at law for slander is damages (a financial remedy.) To obtain an award of damages, the claimant must show a financial loss.

 

Note also the words in bold text.