@David

Ref Quote: all she has succeeded in doing is to bring focus to her client! WEll ! really. and not to be underestimated To herself as well. I wont be surprised if her law office phone is ringing off the hook with potential clients and guess what she didn’t even have to pay a dime for all the Free Publicity which she has so easily gained from the publishing of this article by BFP. A WINNER if you asked me.

@Chris,

I would have to defer to the legal experts on that but ‘truth’ should be a fair defense, how can your reputation be damaged, by a statement (proven) about the individual that is part and parcel of the individual and hence a truth of the reputation in of itself.

There can be no damage.

Lack of proof may be an issue.

The only other point may be where there is ‘malicious intent’, for example Mr.X goes for an interview, MrY knows, then writes a letter to the employer and tells the employer that Mr.X streaked at Kensington ten years before.

There is truth, but there is also malicious intent and damage to Mr.X employment and finances.

I think that is where malicious intent may come in.

But, that may all be rubbish and I will wait the legal experts on that.

@ Eyespy

Do you really want to prolong the issue by asking aloud if the “apology “was insincere or not. At this point let’s say the end justify the mean.The court would see the apology as justifiable with the desired intention to resolve an issue .

@Halsall
Don’t tell me to read it, point to the specific clauses of the act to prove your point.

Your point being …… “Ah, but interestingly, under Barbados Law, one can be telling the absolute truth but if it is damaging to another party it can still be considered Libelous.”

These are all parts of the act
Defence of truth.
Defence of comment.
Reports of proceedings in court.
Particulars of malice.
Responsibility for publication
on and on

Thinking of the contents of Donna’s letter to BFP find the secton of the act to bolster your case that she has a case.

To Adrian Hinds

Truth cannot be damaging, the truth is a fact and therefore can be proven hence it cannot be damaging.

Am I missing something in your logic.

I gone.

If an individual at Inland revenue knowingly took a person to court on baseless charges, can that employee be individual be prosecuted?
Seems the problem is at Inland revenue not BFP.

@Halsall
That is but one part of the act.

9. (1) For the avoidance of doubt, the publication of a fair,
accurate and contemporaneous report in any newspaper or broadcast programme of any proceedings in public before a court (including a court established by a disciplinary law and a tribunal or inquiry recognised by law and exercising judicial functions) shall be protected by absolute privilege.

BUT

11(2) In an action for defamation in respect of the publication of any report or matter referred to in Part II of the First Schedule, the provisions of this section shall not be a defence if it is proved that the defendant
(a) has been requested by the plaintiff to publish at the defendant’s
expense and in such manner as is adequate or reasonable in the circumstances a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction; and
(b) has refused or neglected to do so or has done so in a manner
not adequate or not reasonable in the circumstances.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as protecting the
publication of
(a) any matter the publication of which is prohibited by law;
(b) any matter which is not of public concern and the publication of
which is not for the public benefit; or
(c) any blasphemous or obscene matter.

BUT WHAT BFP DID WAS TO REPRODUCE WHAT THE NATION PUBLISHED. WHAT DOES THE ACT SAY ABOUT THAT?

@enuff

In any situation the purveyors or actors should always act responsibly, that is accepted.

Because we have some who would abuse it as in anything else what should we then, scrap social media.

Social Media will reflect the society that produced it.

@Chris,

I see part (2) of Section 7 as supporting the defense of truth, per se., it is merely defining the approach, that it is holistic, not absolute.

I.e. the news publishes that Mr.X drinks at a bar evey Friday night and then spends the rest of the night in the strip club, if the the drinking part is untrue, but the second true, which is more likely to damage his reputation?

Surely spending his night at the strip club is ‘seen’ to be more damaging to reputation than drinking at a bar, which many do?

Hence, although all is not true, in substance his reputation is not damaged and hence the defense of truth stands.

But, if it was the other way around, the defense probably wold fail.

@Maansseh,

Yes, what you have referred to is part and parcel of the calculation opf damages i.e. the effect and loss of earnings as a result of reputational damage.

As for the repitition of a libellous statement, the Act refers to the primary publisher, but it does refer to grounds of belief (that the statement is true or not), I would suspect that reasonableness would enter the consideration of the facts, as one should not repeat slanderous statement at will, without some questioning and thought as to truth.

Therefore, surely it stands that one cannot repeat a libel at will, with protection from the law, that interprettion would not make sense.

To AC

You seem to miss the point when i introduce the term soci-oeconomic bacakgound to make my point ,hence i will make it clear for you. Do you think that if a doctor was slandered in the eyes of his colleagues and the general public that he will get the same damages as that of a maid, certainly not, and it has nothing to with class.

When deciding damages, a number of factore are considered, including the loss of income as result of the slander, thus tell me how can a maid get the same damages of a doctor or lawyer in this regard.

Please note that i am not professing to be an expert in this area, but I know that is what I learnt some 20 years agd while studying the subject of damges, I might be wrong, but I am not normally as my brain is still tracking.

I gone

The feminine of Jack Ass is Jill Donkey, not Jill Ass. Plus, donkey is a less provocative term than ass. So, please, Jill Donkey.