Problem Question - Defamation

The nature of the scenario in this problem question has different sides to the coin, it therefore has to be broken down in order to get to the root of the issue and problem.

The first thing that must be identified is the definition of defamation

“Defamation is the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed”

The general harm caused by defamation is identified as being ridiculed, shamed, hated, scorned, belittled or held in contempt by others, and lowers him/her in esteem of a reasonably prudent person, due to the communication of the false statement. This tort can result in a lawsuit for damages. Many states have statutes requiring that the allegedly damaged party must first demand a printed retraction of the defamatory statement, before they may proceed to court. If the plaintiff proceeds with a lawsuit without first seeking the retraction or if he/she receives a retraction but proceeds anyway, most states will limit the damages they may pursue to the actual or special damages they experienced, such as loss of employment or wages.

 The main question and issue we have to consider in this scenario is the issue of whether indeed  Pierre did sexually harass Laura, if Pierre did this then it may be an open and close case in terms of  the non existence of defamation of character as the allegations are true. However as I mentioned earlier there are two sides of the coin in this situation so the question is what happens if he did not commit the alleged act ?  What type of defamation will this fall under and what actions can Pierre take ?

The first order of business to take care of is to advise Pierre on the action he could bring for defamation and this must be in accordance with the rule that the words had a defamatory nature.

In place Pierre could bring an activity for criticism it must be built that the words had a defamatory nature, Partimer v Coupland (1840) 6 M&W 105  and the defamatory explanation harms inquirer's notoriety and that the Defendant distributed the defamatory articulation.

Another necessity is that the defamatory explanation needs to allude to the inquirer, as indicated by Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20 utilization of the petitioner's name is palatable to demonstrate this prerequisite.

Segment 1 of the Act 2013 makes the new prerequisite that an announcement more likely than not brought on or would be prone to bring about genuine mischief to the petitioner's notoriety. On the off chance that genuine damage to the notoriety of the customer can't be built then that announcement is not esteemed to be defamatory.

The way that the defamatory articulation might direct influence petitioner's notoriety at the work put too the way that the defamatory explanation came to inquirer's wife and there for may influence his marriage constitute a genuine damage that must be respected by the court.

As indicated by the Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669 "Criticism is the distribution of an announcement which has a tendency to bring down an individual in the estimation of right considering individuals society for the most part; or which has a tendency to make them evade or keep away from that individual.'

In fact the words in the announcement 'Pierre sexually hassles female understudies.' alluded to their essential characteristic significance. Also, the Defendant distributed them through inside posting. As indicated by Defamation Act 2013 s15 gives significance of words "distribute" and "articulation":

"Distribute" and "distribution", in connection to an announcement, have the significance they have for the reasons of the law of criticism for the most part;

"Proclamation" means words, pictures, visual pictures, motions or whatever other system for implying importance.

And also distributed in slander means imparting data to an outsider.

In present circumstance Pierre ought to bring activity for slander that is of Libel sort on the grounds that the defamatory explanation was in a type of composing, replicated 200 times and distributed through inward post and that concedes a lasting impact to the defamatory articulation. At the point when the respondent is accused of Libel he/she loses the chance to utilize the way that their propositions were not to slander or affront the offended party as a protection.

As indicated by Monson v Tussauds [1894] 1 QB 671 the test of lastingness short life of the announcement will be made keeping in mind the end goal to demonstrate that criticism kind of maligning had happened.

This separation is critical in light of the fact that slander is a criminal offense and common wrong while defamation is respectful wrong just.

The letter was tended to governors and different teachers and also it erroneously came to the wife of Mr.Pierre.

As per Loukas v Young [1968] 2 NSWR 549 despite the fact that individuals to whom the announcement was tended to may not have faith in it, it is, then again, critical whether a sensible individual would trust in the announcement.

The defamatory articulation need to incorporate the qualities of petitioner, for example, his name and is plainly delivers to the inquirer Monson v Tussauds [1894] 1 QB 671

The defamatory articulation spilled to the inquirer's wife through mysterious source. The instance of Hayward v Thompson [1981] 3 WLR 471 permits to petitioner bring an activity for more than one defamatory distribution thusly it opens a plausibility to bring an activity for criticism against the litigant for the mysterious production of defamatory proclamation conveyed to the consideration of inquirer's wife.