Slashdot Mirror
British Woman's Twitter Comments Spark Expensive Libel Claims
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."
If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
Based on the article, it would seem that everything she said was either true, or opinion (she called their actions "disgraceful"), but she felt intimidated by the giant potential liability, and couldn't afford council. I imagine that even if everything you say is 100% true (or opinion), it is very intimidating to have to represent yourself in a trial where you face a liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
While I personally don't like the existence of libel laws, this is not the case of misusing it to censor criticism or somebody getting into trouble for an innocent joke. If the company can prove that they payed her promptly then this is libel, otherwise it's not and she can sue them back for wrongful accusation. Nobody has a right not to get sued.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/15/in-which-a-london-solicitor-threatens-me/ Entertaining legal letters included. (Such things DO exist!)
The court has to determine the facts of the matter -- these facts can not be merely assumed as you seem to imply. Thus the court case, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was dishonest and caused harm -- so the court must now make a decision on these claims from the evidence and arguments submitted.
However, the fact that a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono shows that her statements were indeed based upon fact.
I agree completely Mr. Child Molester...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions.
Lawyers, judges, and laws are the implements of conservatism. Lefty shit would be to run a mob into her home to nonviolently stab her to death.
in Malibu that goes by the name of Mrs Streisand.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.
An interesting attack on U.K. libel law might be for foreigners to sue various MPs for things they've said.
Wrong, on all points. Comprehensively.
I know that Slashdot is now primarily a place for the immature and ill-informed to run off at the mouth on topics of which they know little, but that was a particularly clueless contribution.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I still don't understand this. The dictionary flat out defines libel as a published statement that is FALSE and damages someone's reputation. Do they not actually call it libel in the UK? I mean, if something that hurts your reputation (but is TRUE) is somehow wrong/punishable, then I guess that's fine (no it isn't - it's stupid), but calling it "libel" when it has nothing to do with the word "libel" makes . . . no . . . . fucking sense whatsoever.
Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.
Not true. Truth is a defense, as long as it's provable.
The issue with UK defamation law is that burden of proof falls on the accused.
A foreign company filing such a suit is a novel approach though.
I wonder whether defamation or hate crime would win if the two went head to head....
Slashdot, we BADLY NEED a button at THE TOP of the message that says HIDE THIS FUCKING SPAM. Maybe another one that says ADMINISTRATORS, NUKE THIS BASTARD IMMEDIATELY. A lot of us browse at -1 so we can conscienciously moderate. I have rescued a few worthwhile comments from unfair -1's they reached just because enough assholes disagreed with them.
Or maybe, all we need is a -2 score level for outright spam with the presumption that if enough moderators pile on to lower something to -2, it's not even worth seeing that shit.
My understanding is that it's common in the UK for the court to award legal costs to the winner of the civil case, even if it's the defendent. In this particular case, the defendant has legal advice already, but they're working under an arrangement where they will not charge if the case is lost... and I suspect that if the case is won, the money for her defence will end up coming out of the plaintiff's wallet.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
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.
The Truth is Never Libelous
Wrong. The truth is an absolute defense against libel in the United States of America . But if you read a little closer you will see that this woman is British, and British libel and defamation laws are nothing like their American counterparts. Scientists have been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus". The fact that his statement is demonstrably true didn't help at all. British libel laws are not only outrageous for their own citizens, but can also be applied to extraterritorial statements, so there is an entire legal sub-industry of Libel Tourism.
As Americans, we should never take our freedoms for granted. Just glance across the pond for an example of a country at the bottom of the slippery slope.
Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh
Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".
Quite right.
It's a shifty company trying to use the legal system for strategic reasons.
Interesting that you said "a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono [publico]" [emphasis mine]. I was under the impression that "barrister" was the British term for attorney and lawyer. A quick check on wikipedia shows otherwise. Thanks for educating me, or at least pointing me towards getting educated! Barristers and solicitors in england are the splitting of the legal profession into two categories.
-- Those who can represent themselves in place of the client and conduct litigation on behalf of the client are called solicitors, and solicitors are attorneys at law.
-- A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that, while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified professional clients, such as patent agents.
-- A lawyer is one "learned in the law", and can be an attorney, counsel, or a solicitor.
-- An is the official name for lawyers in certain jurisdictions, e.g. Japan + Sri Lanka + South Africa + U.S.A.
The world doesn't revolve around you
For me it does, believe it or not.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
For some people, "Conservative" is shorthand for "everything I don't like." This is a subset of people who try to stereotype. The opposite is people who think "Liberal" is shorthand for "everything I don't like." You can recognize these people because they assume a terrorist will be conservative, or that Obama is the antichrist because he is liberal (and those two go together).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh
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
Why, and let this company screw her over?
Should you not leave negative reviews on Amazon or Ebay?
Being able to tell the world about your experience with a company, is a good form of consumer protection, as it gives the company a good reason to make sure a customer leaves satisfied. If she'd positive tweet, this company may have received extra business so it can work both ways.
The real lesson here is for British politicians and courts to tidy up our messy libel system (assuming she is telling the truth) so companies using these tactics are out of pocket so they think twice about filing these kind of law suits.
Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".
He has a point, though. The UK libel / defamation laws are appalling. So much so that the US had to break some treaties in order to prevent US citizens from being abused by the UK courts for speech which is very much acceptable in the US.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
In today's life lesson, you learn the difference between two separate types of bogus health care - homeopathy and chiropractic care.
Life needs more saving throws.
http://www.jennycraig.com/
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
A foreign company filing such a suit is a novel approach though.
Not at all, it's called, "forum shopping," and it made England a popular destination for libel lawsuits for a number of reasons.
Evidence submitted by the Media Law Resource Centre (MLRC)
New rules to discourage 'libel tourism' in Britain
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
When I am asked to deal with a)lawyers or b)foreign clients, I always ask for money up front. Both types of clients have a nasty habit of stiffing you on the bill. It gets old, really quick.
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.
The main defence to a libel action is ‘justification' i.e. being able to prove that the defamatory allegation is true.
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.
You have a point, the current state of the legal system here is ridiculous with the horrific "war on drugs" and Regan's closing of the state-run mental facilities. I'm all behind you regarding our legal system and those two issues. However, your libel laws are ridiculous. I was brought up with the old adage "sticks and stones" and all that, its a ridiculous notion to claim harm and fiscal damage by what people say about you, barring some extreme cases. But since the 80's on it seems people have developed extremely thin skins. That and the seeming return to fundamentalist belief regarding the creation of the universe and it seems to me people have regressed, gotten sillier and very immature. What a shame.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
"I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions."
It's even better than that. The guy's lawyer has expressly stated that the libel case is on behalf of him personally, and that the company is NOT part of the case.
"I act for Mr Kirby Kearns, the Claimant in the above libel action and am responding to the email you sent to a company of which he is a Director – the company is not a party to the action."
As communicated to Popehat -- http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/15/in-which-a-london-solicitor-threatens-me/
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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."
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. The counterpoint however, is that in America you can get tied up in the courts to the point of bankruptcy very easily against your will with no wrongdoing on your part. Don't assume that everything about your system is better. (Neither UK nor US here)
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
Why would they make it easier for their political opponents to sue them? It'd make election time a lot quieter that's for certain.
Oh please. There's no shortage of people, both American and not, criticizing the US for all kinds of things on this forum, and much of it rightfully so: wars, imperialism, the war on drugs, drone bombings, Guantanamo, corporatism run amok, corruption, "corporations are people", no universal health care, warrantless wiretapping, slow and expensive ISP and cellular service, I could go on and on.
For a refreshing change, we've hit on an issue where, for once, the US really does things right (free speech, and libel laws that actually make a lot of sense--something derogatory has to be proven not only untrue but also malicious for you to get in trouble for it). It's fine that Americans are proud of this.
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.
Define "subluxation", in an objective and measurable way.
When you make your living treating the scientific equivalent of Bad Spine Spirits(tm), you just might be a quack.
I'm definitely not making the assumption that the US system is better. It's fairly clear to me, though, that "free speech" isn't held in quite the same regard in English courts as it is in the US.
As an aside, I (a US citizen) was once threatened (by a UK entity) with legal action for comments that appeared on a website I run. The website is US-based, and the comments were firmly in the realm of opinion, and thus perfectly legal under US law. At the time, the law shielding US citizens from abuse by UK courts had been passed by congress, but not yet signed into law. I was actually sweating it for a couple weeks while I waited for the bill to be signed into law.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
More accurate would be to say that chiropractic works in certain limited situations. Classical chiropractic, however, purports to treat all manner of medical problems, and claims that all are due to "subluxations" of the spine. This is false and has resulted both in serious injury to patients and to a failure to obtain real medical treatment. Chiropractic as founded by Palmer is indeed "bogus". Fortunately, many of those who consider themselves chiropractors are not chiropractors in the original sense and restrict themselves to a kind of physical therapy.
Chiropractic is bogus. It wasn't designed to correct posture or "force tight muscles to release", it was designed to cure completely unrelated illnesses. Which it doesn't do. Any success it may have in treating minor back pain is accidental.
The patients' rights movement (part of the civil rights movement) emptied many of those facilities before Reagan came along. He merely stopped paying for empty buildings.
This is the Alliteration Police, Hand over the alliteration tables right now! ;p
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
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.
Anyone can threaten anyone else with legal action. The organisation I work for (based in the UK, operating in the UK) has received legal threats from companies in India, referring to Indian and US law... we politely replied that we would be complying with English law and that was that.
Baseless legal threats are bad, and should, in theory, lead to English lawyers (who are heavily regulated) getting into trouble. While, obviously, I can't give legal advice, if threatened by English libel proceedings when it is clear that using English law would be a nonsense, the correct response may be to respond to that effect - that England is not the most appropriate jurisdiction, that English law should not apply, and that if they do bring proceedings, you will dispute jurisdiction.
Also, talk to a (good) English media lawyer; they'll probably be cheaper than a US one anyway.