Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal1 min ago
Bad Debtors
11 Answers
Is there anything legally stopping me from posting the contact names/addresses etc of bad debtors on our company website.
By bad debtor I mean companies who liquidated from which we received no payment but are trading from the same premises merely under a differenet trading name.
Thanks!
By bad debtor I mean companies who liquidated from which we received no payment but are trading from the same premises merely under a differenet trading name.
Thanks!
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gill.Mackie. 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.
Yes. It's called the law of libel. How many tens of thousands can you afford to lose? The purpose of your publishing this information would, at best, be to warn off anyone who would trade with the new businesses. There is a clear innuendo (suggestion) that these people have been unscrupulous, if not downright fraudulent.That would most certainly be defamatory.You may think that it's the truth. Well, remember the old lawyers saying " The bigger the truth, the bigger the libel" (That's how the crook Robert Maxwell got away for so long.Anyone telling the truth about him would have been sued for libel)
The legal reality is that here, unlike in other countries, the law of libel puts the burden of proof on the defendant, not the person who says they were libelled. That's why foreigners such as Tom Cruise sue here for libel but not in the US. The recent biography of Mr Cruise, by Andrew Morton,is being published in America, with all its scandalous claims, but the publishers have not published it here and will not. They would certainly lose the inevitable libel action.
The legal reality is that here, unlike in other countries, the law of libel puts the burden of proof on the defendant, not the person who says they were libelled. That's why foreigners such as Tom Cruise sue here for libel but not in the US. The recent biography of Mr Cruise, by Andrew Morton,is being published in America, with all its scandalous claims, but the publishers have not published it here and will not. They would certainly lose the inevitable libel action.
Hi fredpuli47!
Thank you for your answer, your points were among my concerns.
I�m not sure how much you can advise me but when you say the purpose of publishing this information is to discourage others from trading with the new business, I do not intend to post on my website any details of the new businesses, merely the contact details of the old one which owes me money which is now in liquidation and no longer trading.
In posting this information I am not slandering or performing a �defamation of character�, I am simply publishing the details of a company who ordered goods but did not pay for them.
Thanks again!
Thank you for your answer, your points were among my concerns.
I�m not sure how much you can advise me but when you say the purpose of publishing this information is to discourage others from trading with the new business, I do not intend to post on my website any details of the new businesses, merely the contact details of the old one which owes me money which is now in liquidation and no longer trading.
In posting this information I am not slandering or performing a �defamation of character�, I am simply publishing the details of a company who ordered goods but did not pay for them.
Thanks again!
Yes, but that's not the whole answer. What is your reason for giving the contact details of a company which is now in liquidation?Plainly, and you've said so here, it's because it owes you money, is a 'bad debtor'That it has not paid you is no surprise, that's what happens with companies in that situation. There's nobody out there who is going to lose money trading with them now.Any existing creditors will have their claims dealt with in accordance with law.
What irks you is not the old company , now 'dead', but the new company or business, which I'm prepared to guess, has the same people behind it as the old one( if not, then no matter).Your concern is that anyone trading with this new company may suffer the same fate as those who were unpaid from the last one. If not, then what possible thinking could you have to make you list wholly irrelevant contact details?What's the purpose? A court, or more importantly now, any lawyer, will say that the effect is to do down the new business even though you don't name it in terms
The innuendo is plain enough. Your action in publishing this is indicates a risk for future traders.. Otherwise it is utterly pointless.Anyone who may see what you've put may, or will, know that a new company or business trades from those premises.It's probably in exactly the same line of business. If the directors are the same or the trading or company name similar to the old one then that makes the innuendo even more plain.
Now tell me that innuendo is not both defamatory and actionable! Of course it is.
What irks you is not the old company , now 'dead', but the new company or business, which I'm prepared to guess, has the same people behind it as the old one( if not, then no matter).Your concern is that anyone trading with this new company may suffer the same fate as those who were unpaid from the last one. If not, then what possible thinking could you have to make you list wholly irrelevant contact details?What's the purpose? A court, or more importantly now, any lawyer, will say that the effect is to do down the new business even though you don't name it in terms
The innuendo is plain enough. Your action in publishing this is indicates a risk for future traders.. Otherwise it is utterly pointless.Anyone who may see what you've put may, or will, know that a new company or business trades from those premises.It's probably in exactly the same line of business. If the directors are the same or the trading or company name similar to the old one then that makes the innuendo even more plain.
Now tell me that innuendo is not both defamatory and actionable! Of course it is.
Thanks again.
You said the innuendo is that the said companies are unscrupulous - how right you are!
Being an honest hard working (small) business, to have countless companies liquidate, then carry on trading from the same address, using the same telephone numbers, selling the same products, indeed selling the products they did not pay me for initially, well, to my way of thinking that is unscrupulous and other businesses like mine should be warned.
People like this who knowingly order goods with no intention of paying for them put people like me out of business.
Sadly however you are quite correct, the law stands to protect such a practises - indeed slap "ltd" on the end of your company and off you go... Run up a whole list of unsuspecting creditors, change your company name and carry on trading.
Name and shame them and let people draw any conclusion, innuendo or suggestion they like.
You said the innuendo is that the said companies are unscrupulous - how right you are!
Being an honest hard working (small) business, to have countless companies liquidate, then carry on trading from the same address, using the same telephone numbers, selling the same products, indeed selling the products they did not pay me for initially, well, to my way of thinking that is unscrupulous and other businesses like mine should be warned.
People like this who knowingly order goods with no intention of paying for them put people like me out of business.
Sadly however you are quite correct, the law stands to protect such a practises - indeed slap "ltd" on the end of your company and off you go... Run up a whole list of unsuspecting creditors, change your company name and carry on trading.
Name and shame them and let people draw any conclusion, innuendo or suggestion they like.
The problem of people liquidating a company leaving bills unpaid and setting up on the same spot with a new name and carrying on as before is as old as the hills. There have been many discussions in Parliament over the years to get it stoppped but to date nothing has been done. If the creditors cannot or do not pursue a case alleging criminal activity by the directors or if they cannot link a debt to a specific director of a failed company personally and go for him then that is the end of it. That is without considering the reason why the debt was not paid in the first place which could be some legitimate failure or defect in the service provided by the creditor.
To publish as you suggest is an allegation of dishonesty in business which is libel per se and attracts general damages which can be punitive.
Forget it and write it off to experience. In future take very much more care about the terms and conditions of how you are to be paid and whom you do business with.
To publish as you suggest is an allegation of dishonesty in business which is libel per se and attracts general damages which can be punitive.
Forget it and write it off to experience. In future take very much more care about the terms and conditions of how you are to be paid and whom you do business with.
In brief, Ethel is right that truth is a defence to libel ( a defence called 'justification') However, it is still possible for a statement which is true to be defamatory and actionable if it bears innuendo.A little imagination will show that a statement of fact may be literally true but convey further meaning, a defamatory meaning, an innuendo, beyond itself.That hint, that meaning, might be from the context, the circumstances, the form of words used, its having special meaning or significance to the readers, or for other reasons.
It's the innuendo that was concerning here. The statement(s) might well carry an innuendo about people involved in the company, the more so if they are involved in the new enterprise. That's reinforced by Mustafa's point of the well known near fraudulent practice of successive businesses, as described. 'What a coincidence', thinks the world! Even a simple statement could carry that innuendo so the wise thing is not to make it.If you did, you'd be asked why and might find it hard to explain exactly what the motive was, if not a touch more than unnecessarily informing the public !
As to it not being a libel if you believe it true, well,in a sense that's an answer ( sometimes a defence) open to newspapers if they publish in ignorance of the defamatory nature and in certain other cases.They have to publish a prompt correction and apology and pay any costs,too. Sadly, it's not open to everyone to write that e.g the vicar was a paedophile, a thief and a fraud, who got his position by lying about his past ,and then blithely say "Well, I've a defence because I believed it"
It's the innuendo that was concerning here. The statement(s) might well carry an innuendo about people involved in the company, the more so if they are involved in the new enterprise. That's reinforced by Mustafa's point of the well known near fraudulent practice of successive businesses, as described. 'What a coincidence', thinks the world! Even a simple statement could carry that innuendo so the wise thing is not to make it.If you did, you'd be asked why and might find it hard to explain exactly what the motive was, if not a touch more than unnecessarily informing the public !
As to it not being a libel if you believe it true, well,in a sense that's an answer ( sometimes a defence) open to newspapers if they publish in ignorance of the defamatory nature and in certain other cases.They have to publish a prompt correction and apology and pay any costs,too. Sadly, it's not open to everyone to write that e.g the vicar was a paedophile, a thief and a fraud, who got his position by lying about his past ,and then blithely say "Well, I've a defence because I believed it"
Alhamdulillah!! If Gill proceeds as proposed he/she will do so in malice. Malice is the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred, or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may almost certainly increase the judgment to include general damages.
As I have already said, forget it. It is silly. Things are bad enough without making them worse for yourself.
As I have already said, forget it. It is silly. Things are bad enough without making them worse for yourself.
To call it malice, hatred or dis-regard for the others well-being is perhaps a bit of an overstatement.
The fact is I am the injured party here NOT them.
As for "taking more care over the terms and who I do business with", I have three companies who did not exceed nett monthly credit terms and provided false credit references. They all removed stock from the premises before the liquidators could get in and assess and knowingly ordered the goods with no intention of paying for them so quite frankly I dont give a damn about their "well-being!"
Sadly however as you point out the law does stand to protect these individuals in every way and to my way of thinking and Im sure many others would agree that they, in fact, are the ones bearing malice, ill-will and total dis-regard for other people.
Thank you all for your comments.
The fact is I am the injured party here NOT them.
As for "taking more care over the terms and who I do business with", I have three companies who did not exceed nett monthly credit terms and provided false credit references. They all removed stock from the premises before the liquidators could get in and assess and knowingly ordered the goods with no intention of paying for them so quite frankly I dont give a damn about their "well-being!"
Sadly however as you point out the law does stand to protect these individuals in every way and to my way of thinking and Im sure many others would agree that they, in fact, are the ones bearing malice, ill-will and total dis-regard for other people.
Thank you all for your comments.
Just to extend the debate slightly, surely if a company has liquidated it therefore ceases to exist as an entity. Therefore who can Gill be guilty of libelling? If she does not name the directors, and publishes only the company name and address, who has been libelled? Not the company, because it no longer exists (otherwise it would be liable for the debts) and not the directors, because they are only employees (with limited lliability). I suspect it would be a very brave director who would let this go to court!
But I am not a lawyer, just someone who feels very strongly that you should have some means of redress!!
But I am not a lawyer, just someone who feels very strongly that you should have some means of redress!!
Wel, BenDtoy you are perfectly correct: the company itself has ceased to exist and does not trade and any creditors must deal with the liquidators according to law. All true.
What then is the purpose of publishing this utterly pointless notice?
And there's your answer. It doesn't bring any 'redress' does it? If you say does, well what redress is that?So what is the real motive and what is the innuendo, the suggestion?.
What then is the purpose of publishing this utterly pointless notice?
And there's your answer. It doesn't bring any 'redress' does it? If you say does, well what redress is that?So what is the real motive and what is the innuendo, the suggestion?.
1 to 11 of 11
