Lexcel

Is comment free? Print E-mail
Thursday, 26 May 2011 00:00

How can local authorities respond to defamatory comments on the web? Wesley O'Brien looks at the options.

In these times of austerity, many public bodies are making very difficult decisions which impact on staff and service users. The increased level of awareness and scrutiny of these decisions, coupled with the prevalence of social networking sites and online forums, means that local authorities are fighting a daily battle against critical comments posted online, some of which stray into the realms of libel.

Examples of these that we have advised on include:

  • an anonymous blogger making repeated defamatory statements against a councillor and the council;
  • defamatory statements made in the press and on websites by a former councillor; and
  • defamatory statements made online by a serving BNP councillor against individual named officers.

In March 2011, the BBC reported that a Caerphilly councillor had agreed to pay £3,000 compensation together with “substantial” legal costs and to publish an apology, after he posted a libellous comment about a political rival on Twitter.

This article answers the ten most common questions we receive from our local authority clients about this issue.

1. How do I know whether a statement is defamatory?

A statement, whether spoken or written, is defamatory if it is said, or sent, to a third party and if it contains an untrue imputation against the reputation of an individual, company or organisation. Whether a statement is defamatory is a question of fact that the court will determine. The court will apply the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, or any special meaning known to the third party to whom the words were spoken or sent.

2. Who is responsible for the publication?

The individual posting the comments is primarily liable. However, the operator of the website and the web host may also be liable if they have been made aware of the defamatory material. To find out who is running the website, the operator’s contact details may often be on the website itself. If it is not obvious, the contact details of the domain name owner will be held by the domain name registrar. Various searches can be carried out to establish this.

3. Who is entitled to sue?

A defamation claim can be brought by, amongst others, an individual (and in certain circumstances a group of individuals), limited companies, firms and LLPs. A claim cannot currently be brought by a local authority or by central government or by any other democratically elected governmental body.

4. Can a local authority fund the costs of a claim brought by its employee against a third party?

As the law currently stands, a local authority can fund a claim brought by an individual officer and it can also assist an officer in defending such a claim, where it considers such public expenditure to be justified. The position is, however, different for members where a local authority is only entitled to fund a defence, but not a claim brought by an individual member. The only condition is that the statements made must refer to and be defamatory of the individual concerned.

In all cases you should bear in mind the potential cost, staff time and adverse publicity that a decision to fund a claim or defence could bring.

5. Can I get damages?

Yes, provided you are entitled to make out a claim and you succeed in your claim, the court will award you damages. Damages in a defamation claim are intended to compensate the claimant for the damage caused by the statement to the claimant’s reputation. The current perceived limit for damages in such a claim is £200,000. However damages awards are frequently less than £10,000.

6. Are there any practical steps I can take to limit the damage caused?

It is always worth checking the website’s content policy as it may be possible to request the removal of defamatory material by contacting the web host direct.  Unfortunately, the content policy of a number of popular blog sites such as Twitter and Google’s Blogger and Blogspot do not contain any such provision. Others, including  wordpress.com, do. Although they will be responsible for the publication, the law provides web hosts and operators with a defence to a claim provided that they took reasonable care in relation to the publication, and did not know or had no reason to believe that what they did caused or contributed to the publication. In practice, it is very difficult for web hosts to rely on this defence once they have been put on notice that they are hosting or making available the alleged defamatory material.

In all cases, including those where it is not possible to make out a claim, it is worth considering whether to formally engage with the person making the statement in  order to allay their concerns and to provide them with all the relevant facts. This may help prevent further defamatory statements being made. A positive publicity campaign counteracting the adverse comments may also assist.

7. What defences might be raised?

There are three main defences to a defamation claim:

  • Justification is the ultimate defence and requires the maker of the statement to prove that the meaning of the defamatory statement is substantially true. They would therefore have to demonstrate that the “sting” or “gist” of the libel is true.
  • “Honest comment”: this requires proof that the words are: (1) comment and not a statement of fact; (2) based on facts which are true or privileged; and (3) on a matter or public interest. Whether a matter is one of public interest depends on the factual circumstances in each case; however, it has been held that the private character and conduct of a person who fills a public office or takes part in public affairs may be the subject for honest comment in so far as it has reference to or tends to throw light on his or her fitness to occupy the office or perform the duties, but not otherwise. The administration of a local authority is also a matter of public interest. This defence is defeated by malice, which is established if the claimant shows that the defendant acted from an improper motive (e.g. spite, or revenge or personal gain). Proof that the defendant was aware that the statement in question was untrue, or was reckless as to its truth, is conclusive evidence of malice.
  • Qualified privilege: this defence is available in a range of situations and arises where the person who makes the statement has an interest or a legal, social or moral duty to make it to the person to whom it is made. As with the defence of honest comment, qualified privilege is defeated if the maker of the statement was motivated by malice. Where the statements have been posted online (e.g. in a blog or on Twitter, both of which are potentially viewable by anyone) it would be difficult for the maker to demonstrate that the statements were made only to those who had an interest in receiving the statements (i.e. the community served by the local authority).

The Ministry of Justice is currently consulting on proposals to reform the libel laws, including a draft Defamation Bill. If the Bill is enacted in its current form, the common law defences of justification and honest comment would be replaced by equivalent statutory defences, and a new defence of “responsible publication on a matter of public interest” introduced which would provide a defence where the maker can show that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and that he or she acted responsibly in publishing the statement. The Bill would also extend the circumstances in which the defence of qualified privilege applies.

8. How can I find out who posted the statement?

Unless the person posting the comment indicates his or her email address or other contact details on the website, it is often very difficult to determine their identity. It may however be possible to obtain an order from the court requiring the web host to  disclose to you the identity of the individual or their IP address.

9. Can I get the website closed down?

If none of the practical steps set out above succeed, and provided you have put the web host on notice that the site contains defamatory material, you will be entitled to and may succeed in obtaining an injunction against the web host requiring them to remove the material.

10. Am I liable for statements made by people within my organisation?

Yes, an employer is jointly liable for any defamatory statements made by an employee provided the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment and authority. The question the court will determine is whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the defamatory statement.

Wesley O’Brien is a solicitor at Bevan Brittan. He can be contacted by email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

Add comment

The use of pseudonyms is permitted. Supplying an email address is optional and will not be published or used for any purpose other than notifying you of new comments on this article (if requested below).

All comments will be moderated before publication. We reserve the right not to publish comments that are offensive, defamatory or irrelevant to the topic.



Latest Stories

NHS Shared Business Services kick-starts £130m legal services tender
17/05/13: NHS Shared Business Services has kick-started the procurement exercise for a legal services framework agreement potentially worth more than £130m over four years.

Council leaders call for action on 'legal highs' after failed prosecution
16/05/13: Leaders of Cheshire West and Chester Council have urged the Home Secretary to change the law so that local authorities can protect vulnerable young people from ‘legal highs’.

MoJ consults on national standards for expert witnesses in family courts
16/05/13: The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on new national standards for expert witnesses in the family courts in England and Wales.

Local councils win right to submit Sustainable Communities Act proposals
16/05/13: Town and parish councils are to be given powers to submit proposals directly under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, the Government has announced.

See all news stories...

 

Sign up for our FREE email newsletter


Get your full year's CPD for just £349+vat

CLICK HERE for more information


RCJ thumbAssessing capacity to consent to contact
The Court of Appeal has considered the approach to take when assessing a wife’s capacity to decide to live with her husband on his release from prison. Lee Parkhill looks at the judgment. 

Equality thumbThe public sector equality duty and procurement
What is the interplay between the public sector equality duty and procurement? Richard Auton examines the relationship and recent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Full steam ahead?
The Government's consultation on proposed reforms to judicial review drew a furious response from certain quarters, but ministers are unrepentant. Virginia Cooper, Emily Heard and Andrew Robertson set out the key measures

When is guidance ‘statutory’ and does it matter?
Allan Norman analyses the status of 'guidance' and the wider implications of a 2012 High Court ruling, including for the childcare field.

Parental choice of mainstream education
A recent Upper Tribunal case related to parental choice of mainstream education for a child with complex special educational needs and raised important procedural issues, writes Rachel Kamm.

Public land and property development
Selling public land, or making it available for development, is high up on the Government’s growth agenda. But property development is a risky business. How can public sector organisations seek to manage this risk? Phil Lawrence looks at the key issues and the use of s. 237 TCPA 1990.

The deregulation of regulated entertainment
Andy Woods looks at the latest deregulation of regulated entertainment proposed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport following on from the Live Music Act 2012

Major changes on the way to health and safety?
Legislation that could see significant reform to health and safety recently received Royal Assent. Amy-Jo Campbell and Roy Woollard consider the implications.

Caldicott 2: to share or not to share
Dame Fiona Caldicott's long awaited report on service user confidentiality in the health and social care system was published last week. Eleanor Tunnicliffe explains how the findings affect all organisations working in the health and social care sector.

The road to clarity
The Court of Appeal has delivered important guidance on the status of the Code of Practice, "Well Maintained Highways”. Mark Fowles and Lorna Herring analyse the judgment and its implications for local authorities.

Disclosure of documents in procurement disputes
Bidders who miss out on a procurement will often want to get hold of documents to see if they can bring legal action. Helen Prandy looks at the issues this raises.

Highway to CIL
Government proposals to reform further the Community Infrastructure Levy have a focus on highway works. Matt Gilks analyses the measures.

Nuisance: the danger with delay
Gwendoline Davies reviews a recent High Court ruling – in a nuisance case involving a local authority – that is consistent with recent reforms to cost and case management in civil litigation.

Controlling residential objectors
Paddy Whur reports on a recent licensing sub-committee hearing that provided a prime example of the frustration residents often feel when they find it difficult to focus their objections on matters which the authority can rightly take into consideration when determining an application.

Age assessments and the Home Secretary
Jonathan Auburn and Benjamin Tankel analyse a recent High Court case on whether the Home Secretary had been entitled to proceed on the basis of a Merton-compliant age assessment.

Best interests, medical treatment and quality of life
The Court of Appeal has handed down a key ruling on best interest decisions, medical treatment, quality of life and the patient's wishes. The Court of Protection team at 39 Essex Street consider the judges' reasoning.

Ministerial statements and material considerations
A recent High Court judgment considered the sometime murky question of whether ministerial statements amount to material considerations in the determination of planning decisions. Suzan Yildiz and Adam Baker consider the relevant practice points.

Closure of the Independent Living Fund
The Government has defended a JR challenge to the process behind its decision to close the Independent Living Fund. Lee Parkhill considers the significant issues which the ILF's closure  will present to local authorities.

The duty to consult with parents
A High Court judicial review on the duty to consult cautions against the policy of local authorities to make unilateral decisions about children. Clare Ciborowska looks at the lessons to be learned.

The s. 106 that wasn't a s. 106
David Brock analyses a recent High Court judgment that found a purported s. 106 agreement was invalid, and calls on the DCLG to address the problems the case raised.

Local authorities and families with no recourse to public funds
Jonathan Auburn and Benjamin Tankel review three recent cases relating to the duty of local authorities to provide for families with no recourse to public funds.

Don’t look down
The Court of Appeal has looked at whether a homeless applicant with a fear of heights could refuse an offer of accommodation the local authority considered suitable. Alexander Campbell assesses the implications.

The reasonably well informed tenderer
A Scottish Court has applied a “reasonably well-informed and normally diligent” tenderer test to assessing procurement award criteria. Rachel Bickler explains the background to the ruling.

Social security fraud and cohabitation
Joseph Millington considers the thorny question of prosecuting a co-habiting partner in benefit fraud cases.

Planning policy versus the UN rights of the child
How does planning law fit with the rights of the family and of the child under international law? David Hart QC analyses a recent High Court ruling.

How relevant today are s. 106 agreements?
The role of s. 106 agreements is being challenged by reforms such as the Community Infrastructure Levy and changes in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Chad Sutton analyses the latest developments.

The Newhaven village green case
Paul Wilmshurst analyses the many issues raised in the recent Court of Appeal case over whether a beach should be registered as a village green.

In a blaze of publicity
The Department for Communities and Local Government is seeking power to direct local authorities’ compliance with the Publicity Code. The move raises significant issues, write Olwen Dutton and Peter Keith-Lucas.

Losing control of the rudder?
Allan Norman considers how assessments of need without significant harm are treated under 'Working Together 2013’ and ls left distinctly inimpressed.

The new local growth landscape
Anja Beriro looks at the state of play with local enterprise partnerships and the role of local authorities in driving economic growth.

One size does not fit all
Maria Memoli explains the background to the fight to retain the two seats on the Law Society Council for local government and to ensure candidates were proposed by way of nomination.

Tax avoidance and bidding for government contracts
The Treasury and the Cabinet Office have unveiled measures that mean companies involved in tax avoidance schemes could be barred from Government contracts. David Hansom looks at the implications.

No surrender?
Phil Lawrence looks at the options with a lease when it comes to surrenders and re-grants.

Articles of good faith
The Court of Appeal has handed down a major ruling on the contractual issues of co-operating in good faith and exercising discretion. Colin Ricciardello identifies the lessons to be learned.

Disappearing act
Human rights appear to have been airbrushed from the Government’s streamlined version of the ‘Working Together’ guidance for safeguarding children, writes Allan Norman.

Human rights and licensing legislation
Andy Woods highlights the importance of human rights legislation insofar as licensing applications and hearings are concerned.

Interim payments, Zambrano and final determination of benefits claims
A High Court judge has handed down the latest Zambrano ruling. Catherine Rowlands analyses the judgment and sets out the further cases to be heard. 

Blogs, online publications and defamation
A local authority officer recently succeeded in a counter-claim for libel. Wesley O'Brien and Jonathan Moore look at the lessons to be learned. 

Long-term sick leave, short term absence policies and dismissals
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that it was not reasonable to require an NHS trust to make an adjustment to its absence management policy and exempt a disabled claimant. Gareth Edwards considers the implications. 

The Living Wage and EU procurement
As interest grows in requiring contractors to pay the Living Wage, Deborah Ramshaw looks at the interplay with EU procurement rules. 

Recent developments in planning guidance
There have been some significant recent developments in planning guidance. Ned Helme looks at the key points. 

NPPF: A year on - the winners and losers by sector
To coincide with the recent anniversary of the National Planning Policy Framework, the cornerstone of the government's pro-growth agenda, Suzan Yildiz revisits the NPPF's substantive policies and considers its impact on retail, office and residential sectors. 

Fighting talk
A recent dispute between a developer and a city council involved allegations of deceit, fraud and a lack of transparency. Jon Hainey summarises the case and discusses how organisations can safeguard themselves against similar challenges. 

ECO sounding
Elizabeth Cooper, David Hutton and Patrick Sweeney set out what local authorities and registered providers need to consider before they deliver ECO schemes for their housing stock. 

The right prescription?
James Larmour looks at the new NHS provider licence and the controversy over competition in the NHS. 

Nullity points
Richard Harwood examines the issues of nullity, validity and the circumstances in which planning challenges can be brought. 

Professional approach
Jill Mason considers a recent Court of Appeal case involving the discharge by approved mental health professionals of their duties. 

Empty feeling?
A recent case highlighted key issues in relation to empty properties, business rates and occupation by charities. Nathan Holden and Robert Nieri examine the lessons. 

Automatic for the people?
Have contracting authorities lost their automatic injunction protection? Deborah Ramshaw analyses a recent ruling. 

A power cut for local authorities
A tribunal has handed down a key ruling on whether councils can properly charge for non-disbursement costs under regulation 8 of the Environmental Information Regulations. Christopher Knight analyses the judgment.

How to prosecute a breach of an enforcement notice
Jack Smyth provides a practical guide to the prosecution of enforcement notices. 

Shoesmith considers appeal after High Court setback
27/04/10: Sharon Shoesmith is considering an appeal after losing her judicial review action over her sacking in the aftermath of the Baby Peter case, and will pursue her tribunal claim as judge suggests that Haringey's procedures looked unfair.
LexisNexis

Featured Jobs


CLICK HERE to search all current vacancies

 


 LGLtv 300x100

Featured Courses & Events

 


 Shout_to_the_top_looking_left_iStock_000006002590XSmall_98x74 Latest Blog Posts


 


 

Ballot_iStock_000006080605XSmall_thumb

Snap Judgement

How is the post Localism Act standards regime working in practice?


 

www.irwinmitchell.com solicitors