British Woman's Twitter Comments Spark Expensive Libel Claims 303
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "A woman who complained about an unpaid £146 invoice is facing a libel battle that could cost her more than £100,000. Lesley Kemp, 55, took to Twitter claiming that a company based in the Middle East had failed to pay her promptly for transcription work. Now the firm is suing Mrs Kemp, of Milton Keynes, for defamation, claiming up to £50,000 in damages and a further £70,000 in costs. The company, Resolution Productions, based in Qatar, has yet to comment."
Re: Truth is the best defence (Score:3, Informative)
Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.
Popehat picked this one up last week (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Depends on your definition of "Prompt" (Score:4, Informative)
The contract should specify payment terms. Clearly a prompt payment is one that is within the time scale in the contract. One day later is not prompt.
Re:I don't understand the point. (Score:5, Informative)
You have no sympathy for a large company trying to bully a woman out of 50,000 units of money -- over a claim about them not paying 150 units of money. In other words - if you said that I withheld a dollar from you, it would then be fair to claim that I caused $333 of damage to you? Really?
It isn't a "large company". It's this guy, personally. [linkedin.com]
I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions.
Re:welcome (Score:2, Informative)
No, plutocracy is plutocracy and libertarianism is libertarianism. The idea that you should be free to live your life and accept the consequences for you actions is a very libertarian idea, which contrasts with plutocracy where you are not free to live your life but you are required to accept the consequences for your actions. I'm really tired of people redefining opposing political ideologies whenever it's convenient.
Please make an effort to become educated about what you're arguing for or against before you make statements like this.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Before you get all jingoistic about the state of justice in UK, consider that we also look across the pond in horror at how your legal system treats ordinary people. Both seem to be borrowing the worst from each other.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh [wikipedia.org]
Yes he was successfully sued. He only "won" because he appealed and the plaintiffs withdrew their case because of the bad publicity in the tabloids (where the homeopathy practitioners apparently get most of their clients).
British justice: 0
British tabloids: 1
Re: Truth is the best defence (Score:2, Informative)
Are you serious? Are people honestly OK with this over there?
If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?
It's true! I don't understand how the law could punish me for bringing something horrible to light just because the guy might actually need to face the shame associated with his actions.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer. That said, do you have anything to back this up with?
Certainly there's one advantage to the English law in that if you're faced with a frivolous suit you can contest it and if you win the other side will typically bear your costs. In the US if you're sued you need to defend the case at your own expense.
You seem to suggest that truth is not a defense under English law. Everything I have read suggests otherwise. Can you point to an instance of someone actually being punished for making a statement the court found to be true? Certainly the US laws provide greater defenses for a statement that would be classified as an opinion, but truth does appear to be an affirmative defense in England.
A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true. [wikipedia.org]
The main defence to a libel action is ‘justification' i.e. being able to prove that the defamatory allegation is true. [independen...book.co.uk]
It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true. It is not necessary for a defendant to show that there was a public interest in publication and it does not matter whether he or she acted maliciously. [yourrights.org.uk]
Re:welcome (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Chiropractic care isn't bogus when used for what it was designed to do—correcting posture and forcing tight muscles to release so that they don't cause strain in further muscles, resulting in a chain reaction of back pain that leaves people in serious pain.
When used to treat back/neck pain, headaches resulting from tight neck muscles, pinched nerves, and other similar problems, with the exception of physical therapy (much more expensive), it is pretty much the only form of medical care that actually has a good history of success. The cracking of the back also releases endorphins, which make your back feel less sore, which further aids in healing by reducing the tendency to compensate for the sore muscles (which can injure other muscles).
In other words, the mechanism by which chiropractic care functions, at least for those purposes, is well understood and fully supported by medical science, unlike homeopathy, whose mechanism for working is believed to be limited to the placebo effect.... :-)
Of course, when used to treat non-spine-related problems like heart disease and gingivitis, yes, chiropractic care is bogus, in much the same way that antibiotic care is bogus as a treatment for dandruff.
Re:Truth is the best defence (Score:5, Informative)
English common law represents a thousand tears of experience administering justice, it would be unwise to throw chunks of it away based on a case that hasn't even gone to court yet.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
The big problem for chiropractic care is that their are too many quacks. As you say, the mechanisms by which it works is well understood and fully supported by medical science. Unfortunately, even when people go for treatments that do work, many chiropractors will add a little hocus pocus to raise the bill.
A chiropractor told me; "if a chiropractor tells you that you need to keep going to see them on a regular basis indefinitely then they are a quack. If the chiropractor does some manipulations, gets you to come back again a week or so later then tells you that you are done they aren't a quack."
Re:I don't understand the point. (Score:5, Informative)
In other words: what is this Director trying to pull ? Something like, when he looses the case, claiming that he as a person has no money to pay whatever punishment the court deems to impose on him ?
Well, if he doesn't live in the EU then the defendant can demand security of costs. That means the plaintiff has to put funds for her defense into escrow in the EU before the court will hear the case. If he loses, that money is forfeit. If he does live in the EU, then not paying any awards issued by the court will not turn out well for him.
English libel law is a bit over the top, but for the most part the legal system is far better at deterring SLAPP suits and such than the US is.