Defamation

[charitynjw]

Question

If, in the course of a legal action, an unsubstantiated written accusation is made by one of the parties which openly accuses the other of a criminal act, & if the accusing party fails to provide adequate supporting proof that the accusation is in fact correct, is this grounds for defamation?

When would such comment be 'privileged'?

cnjw

[WendyB]

Re: Defamation

Wouldn't it be libel? Surely it would only be priveleged information if it was made between the accusing party and their solicitor? And if it was privileged, then how did the other party find out about it in the first place?

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Defamation

Any comment published, would not be exempt, unless proved true

[ed.]

Re: Defamation

Privilege applies to client - sol or spoken in Court. From memory repeating a libel outside of Court even by quoting representation is still libel.

It's been a few years - I could be wrong.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Defamation

So if a court was to rule in favour, that the charges imposesd for non payment of a mandatory order, were in fact over inflated, any default or any entry on a register for credit history would in fact be Defamaton of the persons true charecter?

[ed.]

Re: Defamation

Potentially.

The basic argument in McGuffick on CRF's was 'true statement of account management' etc. Therefore EVEN if a Court rules the charges (which led to, played a part in) a default were unlawful the defence of fair comment would roughly come into play.

Charges have not yet been deemed unlawful - and defamation isn't retrospective. It's a stupid thing you can argue CRF entries are libellous now (although I'm sure I've seen a caselaw saying it isn't (Righty???)) but when we eventually win the charges battle, you can't go back in history and include libel as a reason to remove info OR claim damages.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Defamation

So will you now admit it is a mistake getting the OFT involved to any case law, a joke, as they are a toothless tiger and they do not actually have any power, hence the recent court case, and their code is actually only a non legal guide.
Which would lead to a conspiracy of the bank/financial industries/government, that the whole credit history recording process (although fundermenatally a good idea) is one imposed by the banks and finacial industries, to extract more profit from those who can and cannot afford it, in conjuicnction with the Direct debit, and bundling it together in a standard form contract/and unauthorised overdraft fees etc?

[charitynjw]

Re: Defamation

Look out - Hijackers!!

:fencing: :fish: :scared: :moony:

Lol - only kidding msl:

[ed.]

Re: Defamation

If that was aimed at me, then erm no and not sure what it has to do with the thread either?

[charitynjw]

Re: Defamation

Nah, not a pop at either your good self or swos - just a misconceived humorous post to highlight how a thread can veer off into unforseen territory.

:yield:

[ed.]

Re: Defamation

lol my post was at swos, but there should be a 'lol' after the no.

Tangents are some of the best discussions I find! PMSL

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Defamation

:embarassed::embarassed::embarassed::embarassed::e mbarassed: OOPs sorry wrong thread

[Smasher]

Re: Defamation

Charges have not yet been deemed unlawful - and defamation isn't retrospective. It's a stupid thing you can argue CRF entries are libellous now (although I'm sure I've seen a caselaw saying it isn't (Righty???)) but when we eventually win the charges battle, you can't go back in history and include libel as a reason to remove info OR claim damages.

Maybe it could be brought back into the present simply by ordering a credit report?
Say we win this battle latter this year and you had a default from 2006. It will still be on your credit file, so if it is still being published, wouldn't that make it present?
Surely it is like publishing an article saying Mr X used to be a criminal, even after he has proven to a court that he is not and never was..

BTW, if anyone in this thread does have a default from bank charges, it would be mighty useful!!

[ed.]

Re: Defamation

lol swos, we are all meant to have sobered up by now!

Smasher, (again working from memory I did Defamation nigh on 10 years ago) there is only a 12 month limitations window for bringing claims of libel, so that's where the cut of would come in.

That said though, on the issue of CRF's I'm sure I saw a post from Righty stating CRF's weren't classed as libellous or something though.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Defamation

Soz Ed I am trying, but I keep on pressing the wrong buttons, last week I went to the forza motorsport 3 web site, or so I thought and got some asian bird with no clothes on.