Firm sues forum to silence critics

[echnidna]

I'd lodge a counterclaim seeking unspecified damages from him for harassment and loss of enjoyment of a public forum etc.

That'll put the cat amongst the canaries

[Frank&Earnest]

The laws on libel are very unclear and libel doesn't have to be a false claim

Since 1 January 2006 'libel' is not current legal terminology, since defamation is not split into libel (written) and slander (spoken) anymore.
(Defamation Act, 2005)

Defamation is by definition a false statement.

[boban]

Having been involved with a few defamation cases and not wanting to upset anyone, let me just say that many of you have it wrong.

To call someone a thief is defamatory. Agreed?

If I were to publish those comments and they were the truth (ie. he is a convicted thief), is anybody here going to tell me that I can be sued.

You guys are better off talking about electrical wiring or better still educate me and advise me of the case references for the precedents some of you speak of.

[Wood Borer]

Interesting comments Boban.

Are you suggesting that some of the posts here might be keeping the urban myths rolling or even creating them?

I have no knowledge of the law however many things I hear about the law are from people who know of someone who went to court .... heard that a magistrate or judge ruled ..... but they say it in such a way that it sounds like fact.

People like me hear of these ridiculous cases and ridicule the law. I have even stated in the past that I have no respect for the law, this is a view I have held for over 35 years. Maybe I have been misled by idiots making out they know what they are talking about.

Perhaps I have been listening to so called experts with no qualifications or experience in law but like to tell a good story.

How do I determine who is spinning a good yarn and who is qualified and experienced in law like you.

[boban]

I don't think there is anything intentional about it at all.

This area of the law has elements to it that most people are not aware of. Concepts such as qualified privilege are simply not common knowledge.

We all like to hear of the guy that did this and that and won his case and so forth. It's even common place in the media.

How many people take the time to read a judgment. Not many I think. Yet most of law (including the interpretation of legislation) is understood by the reasoning expressed within these judgments.

As to determining who spinning a yarn, well in some instances, even I wouldn't know. I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about the law outside those areas within which I have practiced. I only know about this instance because of my direct experience.

There are all sorts of judges out there and on occasion some wacky decisions, but my experience has been of a high level of competence, especially within the higher courts.

[joe greiner]

Bingo on the higher courts. Many cases are reversed on appeal. And the Supremes often, if not always, examine the legislative history, which may not appear in the final acts.

Worse yet are the early settlements that contradict reason, to save cost of litigation. An old cartoon showed a client interviewing his lawyer. "You have an excellent case, Mr. Jones. How much justice can you afford?"

Not a lawyer, etc.

Joe

[pawnhead]

I will be curious to see how this comes out.

2 Clix have backed down and sent Whirlpool a Notice of Discontinuance. Each party will bear their own costs.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...m?t=834421&p=1

There are also rumours circulating about the solvency of 2 Clix.

The outcome is positive, but no test case this time.

[dazzler]

Having been involved with a few defamation cases and not wanting to upset anyone, let me just say that many of you have it wrong.

To call someone a thief is defamatory. Agreed?

If I were to publish those comments and they were the truth (ie. he is a convicted thief), is anybody here going to tell me that I can be sued.

You guys are better off talking about electrical wiring or better still educate me and advise me of the case references for the precedents some of you speak of.

Hee hee,

I used that in an interview once with a convicted thief. "But you are a thief arent you, why would I believe what your saying, you are a liar, you have lied before, I think your lying now."

The magistrate had a chuckle when defence raised it in court that "you cant say those things" when the obvious answer was he was a convicted thief so he is one and had lied in court when he was convicted.

the law