Costs When Threatened to Be Sued (Defamation)

dufflover on 03/08/2017 - 13:41
Last edited 03/08/2017 - 13:56 by 1 other user

My friend at work has had a real good fun time with a matter in the construction industry. I really don't want to say much detail to not cause them any more problems not just from companies but her own relatives.

But it's a pretty stock standard story. Put up pics of the service on Facebook, no accusatory statements or claims; just roughly "is this normal?". Due to their general life situation e.g. money, they submitted to the demand to remove the post.

Anyway rather than talk about the case exactly, my question is what would it have cost to:

  1. Consult a lawyer to see if it's just a bluff or they have a case? Like is it doable in one consultation cost?

  2. If (expletive) were to hit the fan, would all costs be covered if they win?

No, this is definitely not my own situation but sounds like useful general info to know the immediate costs in possibly fighting it (obviously the merits of each case will vary, not saying you'd always win).

Education & Work

Comments

  • cupcake on 03/08/2017 - 13:48
    +2

    You have to contact a solicitor to discuss Costs.

  • Slippery Fish on 03/08/2017 - 13:51
    +1

    Unless he defamed them claiming things he can't show proof of why would he be worried?

    • dufflover on 03/08/2017 - 13:58
      +2

      I think we all know that scare-mongering is a big part of this tactic.
      Even the time and cost of seeing a legal professional to take a glance at the case is too much for some people.

  • EightImmortals on 03/08/2017 - 14:23

    I reckon if he didn't make any actual defamatory claims against the complainants then he's got nothing worry about. Libel laws only work if someone has LIED and ruined someone else's reputation. Most solicitors will do an initial consult for free/cheap I would have thought? I'd be waiting to see if he does actually get a letter form the other guys solicitor before panicking about anything. (IANAL)

    • dufflover on 03/08/2017 - 14:49

      Given they have "complied" with the request to delete, I doubt it.

      IANAL is a big part of it in the end. It sees like common thought of "threat of being sued = OMG big costs hiring a lawyer". I would've assumed the same too just due to lack of experience. Like the fear of it being too late if they only hire solicitor if/when they receive an actual legal notice? (and this is without knowing what the content of that letter is, may not just be a simple delete demand)

  • Ryanek on 03/08/2017 - 14:23
    +1

    Call the bluff. Don't do anything until you receive a letter from a solicitor. Once you receive the letter, delete the post, then create a new one under an anonymous account.

    • altomic on 03/08/2017 - 15:53

      until you receive a letter from a solicitor.

      which means they have coughed 2007-esque Camry money to pay the lawyer.

      • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2017 - 18:29

        Getting a solicitor to write a letter costs (profanity) all.

        That being said, what the (profanity) is wrong with people having to post shit on social media like a retard, instead of just having a dialogue with the tradie/vendor etc.

        If you utilize backwards passive aggressive techniques like that, be prepared for backwards responses.

  • chumlee on 03/08/2017 - 15:23

    Defamation proceedings are extremely expensive for both parties and therefore a lot don't make it to litigation.

    The complainant needs to clearly outline his/her loss solely due to this event which can be very hard to prove a lot of times

  • djkelly69 on 03/08/2017 - 15:26

    Vic Law Handbook - Defamation

    TLDR - the truth is always a complete defence to defamation. Assuming it is an unedited picture of the company's actual work (and no-one else has touched it, etc), and the wording accompanying the post is as you say it is, they have no case to answer.

    A construction company is unlikely to know much about defamation anyway, it is just a threat.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2017 - 15:49

      Truth + public interest. :p Different juridiction admittedly, but Max Mosley dressing up and getting whipped was truthful but not in the public interest, hence defamation. A similar principle applies in Australia beyond just truth.

      • djkelly69 on 03/08/2017 - 16:21

        As per the linked page:

        Under the uniform defamation laws, truth alone is a defence. Therefore, it is not necessary for a defendant to prove that the publication related to a matter of public interest or public benefit.

        Certainly not an expert, but that is what is written there.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2017 - 17:47

          I think the recent Rebel Wilson defamation case showed that truth alone wasn't sufficient. I think Bauer Media demonstrated the facts of her name/age discrepancies and fanciful relationship to Walt Disney but were still found to have defamed her…with the truth. There was also an aspect of bullying.. by repeating the same truths. You can defame people with the truth. As they are civil jury trials, any result is possible.

  • theclearout on 03/08/2017 - 15:26

    Rulings on costs can be a funny thing. It is not a clear-cut as winning or losing. If the judge takes the view that the case could have been settled reasonably before getting to court then he/she may apportion costs to both parties.
    From the little information that you have been able to provide it looks like your friend has removed the post in question when asked to do so by the construction company. I would think that would be the end of the case.
    No point in poking the bear.

    • dufflover on 03/08/2017 - 15:33

      Well they most certainly hope it is. But yeah if sticking up on principles and being "right" still costs you money, then what is the point in some ways …

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join