Jump to content

Please help.. libel or slander?


Recommended Posts

Well thanks folks for all your input, it appears that although a defamatory statement has been made against me orally and without justification, because I will not suffer a financial loss, I have no way of legal remedy of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

 

Of course not! - You have every right to complain. If, however, you announced loudly to all and sundry that 'Joe9T was a crook and a fraud and takes money off people then fails to turn up' and Mr B (who had made a booking with Joe for the following night) overheard what you said and cancelled that booking and Joe was unable to replace it then there would be little doubt that Joe would have suffered financial loss as a result of your statement.

 

The statement might still not be slanderous, however.

 

Slander occurs when a defamatory statement has been made orally and without justification.

 

It would be up to Joe to prove the words in bold.

 

'Defamatory' - ' a crook and a fraud and takes money off people then fails to turn up' would seem to fit the bill there. - No problem with that.

 

'Orally' - Well, Mr B heard you say it, so no problem proving that.

 

'Without justification' - Here's where the arguments start.;)

 

If you disagree with somebody over something, then (IMO) the best thing you can do is talk it over with him. Try to resolve the dispute. If that doesn't work, you might try a mediator.

 

The law is a means of resolving disputes. - Nothing more. if you use the law to resolve a dispute and if you do so in a court (and particularly if you bump it all the way to the House of Lords) then you are using the ultimate (permissible) means of resolving the dispute.

 

The further up you go, the more it costs.

"Use the court as the last resort."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Which still doesn't say that you have libelled them, merely that you are accused of slander. As this would have to be funded by them, and as you don't get legal aid for civil actions, you have little to fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which still doesn't say that you have libelled them, merely that you are accused of slander. As this would have to be funded by them, and as you don't get legal aid for civil actions, you have little to fear.

 

I haven't libelled anyone. It is they through their solicitor that have made accusations concerning me. It is the other way round. It is they that have slandered me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven'y libelled anyone. It is they through their solicitor that have made accusations concerning me. It is the other way round. It is they that have slandered me!

 

If they've written a letter to you (even via a solicitor) and they have not put that letter into the public domain, then they've complained to you. That's all.

 

You may be (and obviously are) angry, but if that's all that has happened, there's not a lot you can do about it. If, however, they publish that complaint orally (or publish another one) and if you can prove that it is not justified and if you lose bookings,(which would be a financial loss) then (provided they've got the money to pay you) you might consider suing them for slander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven'y libelled anyone. It is they through their solicitor that have made accusations concerning me. It is the other way round. It is they that have slandered me!

 

No. That's what I said earlier!

 

You have been accused of slander. If they publish those accusations, they have libelled you, if the accusations are wrong. 'Publishing' means telling others apart from you or those legally obliged to you, in a permanent form.

 

My advice is to let them take you to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they've written a letter to you (even via a solicitor) and they have not put that letter into the public domain, then they've complained to you. That's all.

 

You may be (and obviously are) angry, but if that's all that has happened, there's not a lot you can do about it. If, however, they publish that complaint orally (or publish another one) and if you can prove that it is not justified and if you lose bookings,(which would be a financial loss) then (provided they've got the money to pay you) you might consider suing them for slander.

 

Libel. It would have been published by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That's what I said earlier!

 

You have been accused of slander. If they publish those accusations, they have libelled you. 'Publishing' means telling others apart from you, or those legally obliged to you in a permanent form.

 

My advice is to let them take you to court.

 

No no no. You have totally misread my OP. I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE. I HAVE NOT ACCUSED ANYONE, THEY HAVE ACCUSED ME!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they've written a letter to you (even via a solicitor) and they have not put that letter into the public domain, then they've complained to you. That's all.

 

You may be (and obviously are) angry, but if that's all that has happened, there's not a lot you can do about it. If, however, they publish that complaint orally (or publish another one) and if you can prove that it is not justified and if you lose bookings,(which would be a financial loss) then (provided they've got the money to pay you) you might consider suing them for slander.

 

Slander per se

 

The requirement that the slander claimant prove financial loss does not apply for slander per se , however.

 

Slander per se encompasses:

 

* an allegation that the claimant committed a criminal offence that could be punishable by imprisonment;

* the suggestion that the claimant is suffering from a contagious disease , such as leprosy or HIV/AIDS;

* the suggestion that a woman has committed adultery or otherwise behaved in an unchaste manner; or

* the suggestion that the claimant is not fit to carry on his trade or profession .

 

A person alleging any of these types of slander does not have to prove financial loss as part of their claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.