Grace Dent To Replace Gregg Wallace On...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Complaint Insult
9 Answers
if someone files an official complaint about you which contains what you believe to be wrong and damaging claims which threaten your job and reputation, can you take legal action against the complainant - or can literally anything be legitimately stated in a complaint?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by princerupe74. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You may sue for libel if the complaint is in writing. The complainer may raise two defences: 1) that the statements made were true, either in every particular or in substance 2) that the statements were privileged.
Privilege is a defence when there is a shared interest in the subject, the interest being moral or legal. Thus comments and statements made in a reference from one employer to a potential one or a report on an employeee by a manager to his director are seen as privileged. Your complainer would seek to argue that there was such a shared interest between himself or herself and the person to whom complaint was made. However, the law is not such an ass as tolerate malicious statements and complete fabrication being printed in the guise of privilege. If you can show that the opinion was not genuinely held by the complainer or that they made statements of fact against you which they knew were untrue, the defence fails. Lawyers talk of "qualified privilege" in such cases;the privilege is not absolute, as, for example, statements made in debates in the House of Commons are, but qualified by those conditions.
Privilege is a defence when there is a shared interest in the subject, the interest being moral or legal. Thus comments and statements made in a reference from one employer to a potential one or a report on an employeee by a manager to his director are seen as privileged. Your complainer would seek to argue that there was such a shared interest between himself or herself and the person to whom complaint was made. However, the law is not such an ass as tolerate malicious statements and complete fabrication being printed in the guise of privilege. If you can show that the opinion was not genuinely held by the complainer or that they made statements of fact against you which they knew were untrue, the defence fails. Lawyers talk of "qualified privilege" in such cases;the privilege is not absolute, as, for example, statements made in debates in the House of Commons are, but qualified by those conditions.
As Fred says libel is a defamatory statement made in a permanent form such as a letter.
A libel is actionable in tort (civil wrong) and it can be a crime the defence of truth is a defence only if the statement was published for the public good. The defence of absolute or qualified privilege can be difficult and I suggest you seek legal advice rather than try to deal with this on a DIY basis.
A libel is actionable in tort (civil wrong) and it can be a crime the defence of truth is a defence only if the statement was published for the public good. The defence of absolute or qualified privilege can be difficult and I suggest you seek legal advice rather than try to deal with this on a DIY basis.
.
Prince rupert - doesnt mean you are the Prince of Rupees ! that is I assume you are not gold plated with a deep pocket
first of all get a copy of the complaint - If it is police I dont know how you do this and it may indeed be privileged in some way
if it work based - then data protection act - to the data controller of the work place.
and once you have the text - you can decide what further action
we have all posted in various other threads on this subject. Malicious falsehood is very difficult to prove - [basically you have to get the complainer to say they knew there was no basis and it was done just to make trouble]
and for libel you need lots and lots of moolah - think £200/hr.
Oh, can you Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhn them ? No impossible - Vicky Pryce seems to have had a long term death wish -
Your first duty to yourself is to defend the complaint.
as a retired veteran of these I can say that proving the complainant is a stupid ++++ can be quite difficult.
Prince rupert - doesnt mean you are the Prince of Rupees ! that is I assume you are not gold plated with a deep pocket
first of all get a copy of the complaint - If it is police I dont know how you do this and it may indeed be privileged in some way
if it work based - then data protection act - to the data controller of the work place.
and once you have the text - you can decide what further action
we have all posted in various other threads on this subject. Malicious falsehood is very difficult to prove - [basically you have to get the complainer to say they knew there was no basis and it was done just to make trouble]
and for libel you need lots and lots of moolah - think £200/hr.
Oh, can you Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhn them ? No impossible - Vicky Pryce seems to have had a long term death wish -
Your first duty to yourself is to defend the complaint.
as a retired veteran of these I can say that proving the complainant is a stupid ++++ can be quite difficult.
Hymie, there's a subtlety here. Truth "justfication" is a defence to a libel action, any libel action.
There is another defence which used to be called "fair comment", now "honest comment". That was the defence which was, and is, available to book and theatre reviewers. They are entitled to give an opinion on any work, such as a play, put before the public and it does not matter if that opinion suggests or states that a performer or writer is bad or incompetent in it, so long as the opinion is genuinely held. This defence is now also available to scientists and other specialists. In one case a scientist said, in effect, that a treatment and medicines offered by a company were mere quackery, and didn't work. The company sued. The court held that provided that the opinion was based on some facts which were true AND it was in the public interest that the opinion be published then the defence of honest opinion was open to the defendant. You see, it does not matter that there may be other facts which could be taken as showing the opposite; a scientist is entitled to draw on his expertise to form a judgment on the evidence and give that opinion.
There is another circumstance in which the truth may be libellous. It may be possible to assemble a series of facts, all true, and put them together to make a libellous whole That is innuendo. The clear message, the suggestion, in the piece may be taken to be one thing yet none of the individual facts is untrue. For example, that a married man is booked into the same hotel, is seen in the company of, is seen leaving the house at 4 am, of the same single woman together with a few other careful details (his wife was away etc) can be presented as a clear suggestion that he's committing adultery, yet it is never stated in terms
There is another defence which used to be called "fair comment", now "honest comment". That was the defence which was, and is, available to book and theatre reviewers. They are entitled to give an opinion on any work, such as a play, put before the public and it does not matter if that opinion suggests or states that a performer or writer is bad or incompetent in it, so long as the opinion is genuinely held. This defence is now also available to scientists and other specialists. In one case a scientist said, in effect, that a treatment and medicines offered by a company were mere quackery, and didn't work. The company sued. The court held that provided that the opinion was based on some facts which were true AND it was in the public interest that the opinion be published then the defence of honest opinion was open to the defendant. You see, it does not matter that there may be other facts which could be taken as showing the opposite; a scientist is entitled to draw on his expertise to form a judgment on the evidence and give that opinion.
There is another circumstance in which the truth may be libellous. It may be possible to assemble a series of facts, all true, and put them together to make a libellous whole That is innuendo. The clear message, the suggestion, in the piece may be taken to be one thing yet none of the individual facts is untrue. For example, that a married man is booked into the same hotel, is seen in the company of, is seen leaving the house at 4 am, of the same single woman together with a few other careful details (his wife was away etc) can be presented as a clear suggestion that he's committing adultery, yet it is never stated in terms
My apologies for my over simplified answer and my thanks to Fred for filling out the subject, as you would expect from Council.
Interestingly in English law a distinction is made between defamation in permanent form (Libel) and defamation in a non-permanent form (slander), this distinction does not exist in Scottish law and the criminal law offences of seditious, defamatory and obscene libel were abolished under section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
In English law the basis of a tort (civil Wrong) is damage to reputation so it must be proved that the statement was communicated to a person other than the person defamed, under Scottish law this is not the position as defamation can include injury to the feelings so the statement does not have to be communicated to another person. The defendant may escape liability for unintentional defamation by making an offer of amends the defences of absolute and qualified privilege can be very difficult and in my opion should only be undertaken after advice.
Interestingly in English law a distinction is made between defamation in permanent form (Libel) and defamation in a non-permanent form (slander), this distinction does not exist in Scottish law and the criminal law offences of seditious, defamatory and obscene libel were abolished under section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
In English law the basis of a tort (civil Wrong) is damage to reputation so it must be proved that the statement was communicated to a person other than the person defamed, under Scottish law this is not the position as defamation can include injury to the feelings so the statement does not have to be communicated to another person. The defendant may escape liability for unintentional defamation by making an offer of amends the defences of absolute and qualified privilege can be very difficult and in my opion should only be undertaken after advice.
-- answer removed --
1 to 9 of 9
