Defamation on a internet forum

[straightup]

Hi,

I've just had a letter through with a draft High Court claim for defamation on an internet forum.

I used to be a MD at a small Ltd company (am no longer, and no part of) and responded to a competitor who claimed that I (acting on behalf of the Ltd company) had attempted to price fix with him. I responded with the truth of the matter which was the complete opposite of what he claimed. This all happened on the internet forum.

On paper, he can show that I may have spoken to him and tried to reach agreement on a min price, but it was a case on being coerced over the telephone first, a call that he instigated. Am a little bit worried about how it could look on paper. Mind you, it is a Libel claim for Defamation of character rather than a Price-Fix related claim.

My question is, why after seeking specialist advice is he coming after me and not the Ltd company whom I was representing? Why he didn't ask for the post to be removed by the internet forum and if they didn't act in a timely fashion (they usually do though), why isn't he suing them?

Doesn't the case of Nigel Smith vs ADVFN, 2008 ruling (at the High Court) set precedent on internet forum posts and mean that this forum chat back and forth is more conversational and to be deemed slander, if anything?

Thanks in advance.

I don't have the money for legal representation in this and haven't been given long to respond.

 

[Big Pete]

Doctor some similar libel stuff from them at you.. and tell them to get stuffed is what i would do

But then thats me for you ..so best wait for a solicitor..although my ways have worked for me before

 

[MASSEY]

Why would 2 small companies price fixing be of interest to anyone? its not illegal.

Just photo copy a picture of your arse and post it to him, he sounds like hes a few short of a picnic.

 

[straightup]

He is claiming that it was defamation of his character to say that he proposed price fixing.

 

[MASSEY]

He is claiming that it was defamation of his character to say that he proposed price fixing.

You should just ignore him, it will go away.

This is why he can not do anything. How does he know it was you sitting at the computer on the forum. It could have been some one pretending to be you .

He will waste his money on legal fee's

 

[straightup]

It is now at quite advanced stages, I have a week or so to respond and have been sent draft High Court paperwork with their supporting evidence.

I already responded to his solicitors previously stating I stand by the comments I made but was happy to retract them. The post itself was deleted by the internet forum after a couple of months and a few requests.

 

[Giggleberries]

Just ignore it as it is for him to prove that it was you who was sat at the computer

 

[filtuh.com]

I'd say that the burden of proof/evidence is on him, and the internet forum to prove from IP logs. Even if they can find enough evidence, there's enough holes for it to be laughed at.

Go get some proper legal advice though imo

 

[robertt]

I already responded to his solicitors previously stating I stand by the comments I made but was happy to retract them.

Some crap advice in this thread to be honest!

No doubt there will be requests / undertakings they require in the documentation, are they reasonable, if so can you comply?

Do you want to?

Get a friendly legal bod to check that they are following the right preaction protocol etc, as there are certain ways of doing things that have to be followed.

Dont just ignore stuff like this though!

 

[Rhodes100]

A libel action costs a lot of money to bring as a person cannot get legal aid to bring it, hence the draft not the real thing.

Your best defence is that what you said was true so if you have documentary evidence then show it, or perhaps that he made the same statement/request to other parties.

Other things he has to prove is that there was a loss resulting and that the loss suffered was as a result of your statement on the forum and no other reason.

The provision of accounts showing a failing business with a reduced turnover is not enough. Neither is the loss of customers per se.

I would have thought that you should ask him for his proof that any statement you made resulted in a loss of business. He will have to provide the evidence anyway.

These papers have not been submitted though, it would seem to be a scare tactic initially you cant stop an action against you, but threats and actions are two different things

Of course if you dont have any money then it is a waste of time him bringing an action. One because he will have to pay his own legal fees and two he wont get a penny from you.

 

[LawHound]

Who have you had the letter and draft High Court papers from? Him or a solicitors firm? I agree, its not something to simply ignore or to compund the issue by making it some form of game but ignoring a serious threat is not in your best interests.

 

[Eagle]

Why he didn't ask for the post to be removed by the internet forum

I'd say see him in Court - not having done that (kind of a 'retraction') will be his downfall.

 

[straightup]

Thanks all for your input.

The draft papers were sent by his Solicitors and say they have instructed Counsel.

I have several posts of him calling me various things and questioning my reputation prior to me retaliating.

The draft seems to have many holes in and I would be able to demonstrate that he instigated my reply by accusing me of price fixing. I tried to ignore him and allow the mods to do their jobs, but this guy (the claimant) didn't stop. In the Xmas spirit last year, I even offer to retract my comments if he removed (selective) private emails from his website. I refused and said to deal with his solicitors. Again I have this in writing.

He could have requested the removal of posts which he deemed to be defamatory, but chose not to. My posts were eventually removed at my request, but his posts quoting me still remain today. If he was bothered about damaging his reputation, he would of had these removed but has chosen to leave them in place and are still there today. Not the actions of someone who is concerned about their reputation.

I have made a request to the forum owners for original copies of the threads and details of requests to remove posts.

I estimate he has already spent £2000 in legal costs thus far. How much more is it likely to cost him and would I be sensible to attempt to represent myself?

Does the High Court ruling of the case Nigel Smith vs ADVN 2008 set precedent in Internet Forum defamation claims?

 

[kulture]

If this person is prepared to spend such money, I would suggest seeing a solicitor to try and put this to bed before it gets out of hand.

 

[Chris_D]

If this person is prepared to spend such money, I would suggest seeing a solicitor to try and put this to bed before it gets out of hand.

Hi there,

Indeed, I agree with these later posts that if someone is prepared to spend monies on counsel plus instructing solicitors this is now very serious. How much is the claimant suing for on the (sealed) claim form?

If you ignore this it could also lead to a court order for substantial damages and legal costs against you (as in my experience defamation costs are very random and often disproportionate).

A sensible litigant (claimant) would attempt to settle (using what is called a part 36 offer) or try to join the ISP as a co-defendant (because they have the deepest pockets). However this seems more of a personal battle and given the probable ISP defence (for all the lawyers out there :defendant ISPs who act as mere conduits of defamatory information rather than hosting it, and have no involvement in initiating its transmission, selecting or modifying it, or choosing who would receive it, should have defences under the Defamation Act and the E-commerce Regulations see (John Bunt v David Tilley and others [2006] EWCH 407 (QB))

Either way you should be prepared - do not bury your head in the sand like some of the suggestions here. I'm not saying you must have legal representation but if you can afford to instruct at short notice you should.

Legal advice would be far beyond the scope of this posting but personal message me if you would like a pointer as to who can help.

 

[Hombre]

I can't speak for English law but up here in bonny Scotland claimant does not need to prove loss to pursue this type of action.

 

[Chris_D]

I can't speak for English law but up here in bonny Scotland claimant does not need to prove loss to pursue this type of action.

Indeed - similar in English & Welsh Law -

Libel and slander are the two limbs of the tort of defamation. There has been some debate as to whether postings on the internet amount to libel or slander. Libel is the publication in permanent form of a defamatory statement. Slander is its publication in transitory form. It is generally accepted that defamatory statements on web pages are to be regarded as libel, whereas in the case of Smith v ADVFN Plc and others [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB) the High Court classified chat on an internet bulletin board as more akin to slander than to libel. An important difference between the two is that for slander the claimant will often have to prove that he has suffered some actual financial loss, but this is not necessary in the case of libel.

Basilcally - A risky area

 

[straightup]

Hi there,

Indeed, I agree with these later posts that if someone is prepared to spend monies on counsel plus instructing solicitors this is now very serious. How much is the claimant suing for on the (sealed) claim form?

If you ignore this it could also lead to a court order for substantial damages and legal costs against you (as in my experience defamation costs are very random and often disproportionate).

A sensible litigant (claimant) would attempt to settle (using what is called a part 36 offer) or try to join the ISP as a co-defendant (because they have the deepest pockets). However this seems more of a personal battle and given the probable ISP defence (for all the lawyers out there :defendant ISPs who act as mere conduits of defamatory information rather than hosting it, and have no involvement in initiating its transmission, selecting or modifying it, or choosing who would receive it, should have defences under the Defamation Act and the E-commerce Regulations see (John Bunt v David Tilley and others [2006] EWCH 407 (QB))

Either way you should be prepared - do not bury your head in the sand like some of the suggestions here. I'm not saying you must have legal representation but if you can afford to instruct at short notice you should.

Legal advice would be far beyond the scope of this posting but personal message me if you would like a pointer as to who can help.

Thanks for your help.

There is no sealed claim form?

All I have is a covering letter stating I need to make a public retraction/apology and agree to pay legal fees plus damages (to be agreed), and then there is the Draft Particulars of Claim. It mentions the company saying the defendent carries on business as X Limited (is incorrect as it is Ltd, and is not my even owned or part owned by me)

Claimant claims:
1. Damages, inc aggravated damages, for libel
2. An injunction restraining the defendent from further publishing...

Thats the lot. Then their are companies house print outs of the company and screenshots of emails. There isn't even an original screenshot of the BB post in question, just an emailed copy, which he copied and pasted into his email.

I have asked for the original copies to the threads by the admin at the BB, but they have informed me that it may not be possible at all as it was 11 months ago and they can't retrieve. So all there is in terms of submitted evidence is the claimants own email to himself with a copy/paste of my alleged post (not a screenshot).

I've got over 10,000 posts on that darn BB, and can't remember word for word what was said without the full facts of the original thread (ie the whole lot).

 

[straightup]

So at the moment:

I have been given copies of a Draft Particulars of Claim, with the wrong info on company ownership, wrong company name, wrong BB username.

The only "evidence" that the post ever exsisted is the claimants copy/paste of text and email to himself, no screenshots.

The BB admin have told me that they may not be able to recover the posts/threads anyhow.

He is claiming a damage to his reputation, yet the only existance of said BB post is his own partial quotes on the thread and his reply. If I was worried by damage to my reputation I would have requested the BB admin delete the whole thread (which they would have done), yet the claimant chose not to.

He would need to prove that my (alleged) post was inaccurate in order for my comments to be "libelous". His comments about me were far worse anyhow and my alleged reponse was only after being provoked.

This is all about one single post. I could probably counter with libel claims for numerous posts.

I think any level headed Judge would see it as petty with inaccurate and incomplete evidence.

Also, I was going to use the HQ ruling of Smith v ADVFN Plc and others [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB)

 

[LawHound]

So at the moment:

I think any level headed Judge would see it as petty

Good luck with finding one of those. There are 2 sorts of people who do OK in court cases of this seriously expensive nature, those who have lots of cash and can afford to take a financial hit to milk the PR value the press gives them and those with absolutely nothing to lose ie no home, no assets, nadda. Unless you are in either of those 2 camps you really do need to take some legal advice on the strength of your claim.

 

[straightup]

I am in the latter group

Could do without the hassle really though.

I could let them know my financial position, but I don't really want him to know as he is very likely to plaster it all over the BBs. If I win the case or it doesn't happen, I won't need to disclose my financial position.

So many holes in their claim and the evidence is seriously sketchy at the moment. If the BB admin can't dig up the old posts/threads, the case will be dead in the water anyhow.

 

[Christine Hough]

It is now at quite advanced stages, I have a week or so to respond and have been sent draft High Court paperwork with their supporting evidence.

I already responded to his solicitors previously stating I stand by the comments I made but was happy to retract them. The post itself was deleted by the internet forum after a couple of months and a few requests.

Least said the better.
I would advise not replying and certainly do not say anything about your argument. It gives him his case.

Defamation is very expensive for him to pursue and he has nothing much to gain (difficult to prove what you said was not true and if you have already removed the post) .... apart from scaring you to an out of court payment if you feel threatened.

That will be what he is after.

 

[Christine Hough]

But then the lawyers here are advising you to take it more seriously. And I am not a lawyer.
But I cannot see that they are doing anything other than sabre rattling. All the papers you have received are their proposals, and not court papers.

But is not nice for you.

 

[Terry1]

Straightup

The Smith V ADVFN judgement was not a precedent but gives us a steer as to how online comments may be judged in the future. There will be some comments which will be still considered libel but many others such as insults and comments made on the spur of the moment would be slander.

The fact that the claimant was participating in the discussion may be very useful to your defence.

I know the Smith V ADVFN inside out and it sounds as if there may be some similarities with your case. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

 

[straightup]

Thanks for the help guys, is appreciated.

Just to let you know that 12 months has now passed from the alleged publication.

There is nothing from the Court or his solicitors, so would it be safe to assume it has now timed out (despite the draft High Court application)?

 

[Terry1]

I believe he has 12 months to make a claim but then I think he has a further 4 months to serve it upon you so you may not be out of the woods yet. I would check with the court if I was you (I think the Queens Bench Division at the High Court) is where these cases are usually heard.

Let us know how you get on. To be honest it does not sound that he has got much of a case and the apparent lack of correct pre-action protocol might suggest that he is not serious or he and his solicitors are not familiar with this area of the law. (read Smith V ADVFN PLC 25/7/2008 to see how a top 100 law firm can get it so wrong)

 

[Terry1]

More coverage from Smith V ADVFN PLC.(13/12/10) The judge agreed with the comments of Eady J and added that the claimant had not proved a substantial number of people read the comments or attributed them to the claimant. A civil restraint order issued due to the scale of claims wholly without merit. Looks like there is enough material to sink the claim made against you. Clearly this area of the law is moving in the right direction.

Unable to post the link but on BAILII under Smith V ADVFN PLC 13/12/10