Colleague accused of defamation

[javacoder]

I attended a meeting with 3 colleagues a few years ago. The meeting was with 3 members of another organisation and it wasn't minuted.

One of my colleagues (let's call him Bob) recently wrote to one of the people from the other organisation (let's call her Jane), referring to something that she said at the meeting. I, and the other colleagues from my organisation, saw the text of the email before it was sent and agreed with the content.

Jane has taken exception to the wording, which could be read as an accusation of impropriety, and is accusing Bob of defamation (2 other people, who weren't at the meeting, were cc'd in the email). Bob has written back to clarify that it wasn't an accusation of impropriety, but won't withdraw the statement, because it is technically correct.

My limited understanding of UK defamation law is that the person accused of defamation has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their statement is true. There are three witnesses from our organisation which agree that it is true, and potentially 2 witnesses from the other organisation who may or may not have a different account of the meeting (but who are unlikely to deliberately perjure themselves).

How might a case like this be judged?

[Papergirl1968]

No, I think, the onus is on the complainant to prove it is defamatory in the eyes of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" i.e. your average Joe.
Libel cases are notoriously expensive and far beyond most people's means so I wouldn't worry about it getting anywhere near court.

[Papergirl1968]

Sorry, Op, you're right. It's a long time since I studied defamation. Yes, the onus is on the person accused of defamation to prove it is true.
Still wouldn't worry about it going to court though as it would be prohibitively expensive.
Depending on the circumstances, qualified privilege may apply.

[prh47bridge]

If the defendant wants to claim that the statement is true then yes, they do have to prove it. However, they do not have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It would be a civil case so the level of proof required is lower than in a criminal case.

I agree with Papergirl1968 that it is very unlikely to go to court.

[javacoder]

Thanks. I looked up the Wikipedia definition of Qualfied Priviledge and some of that might apply.

Jane is wealthy, bullish and political so I wouldn't put it past her to take it to court. It may even be funded by her employer (at taxpayer's expense).

Bob isn't one to be bullied though, so is likely to stand his ground.

[prh47bridge]

The meeting you describe sounds like it was a private meeting between representatives of two organisations. It is not enough that Bob's email was fair, accurate and without malice. Unless this was one of the kinds of meeting listed in Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 Bob's report is not automatically protected by qualified privilege. Reports of private meetings between organisations are generally not protected.

Qualified privilege also applies where the person making the statement has a legal, moral or social duty to make it to the person to whom it was made. So, for example, if you give a reference for someone you are protected by qualified privilege. It is possible this covers Bob's statement but, from the description you have given, it seems unlikely.

If Jane decides to take legal action Bob will need to take proper legal advice as to whether or not he can claim qualified privilege.

[PerryMasonsFriend]

Jane has taken exception to the wording, which could be read as an accusation of impropriety,

In order for something to be defamatory, under s. 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 it has to cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Claimant
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/1/enacted

It is (probably) unlikely that an email sent to 3 people accusing someone of "impropriety" in a meeting which is actually techically true would cause someone serious harm. The court takes into account the number of recipients of the communication.

It's not impossible that 3 publishees would be enough - if (a) the allegation was serious and (b) the publishees believed it and were reputationally significant or were likely to republish it/tell others:

(for example, if you were accusing an accountant of offering to fraudulently doctor accounts and you emailed his boss, the head of the institute of chartered accountants and a journalist)

However, without knowing exactly what was said and who the publishees were you can't say for sure "it's very unlikely to go to court" - because it depends on the seriousness of allegation of impropriety (which covers a multitude of sins) and who it was sent to.

Assuming it was a serious allegation and sent to people who mattered, the likely defences would be:
truth (burden of proof on D to prove)
qualified privilege (where there is a duty to disclose and interest in receiving it)
honest opinion (if it was expressed as opinion and could be held honestly - eg. "I saw Jane take money out of the till and put it in her hand bag" is a statement of fact and not opinion whereas "as I walked in the room, I heard the sound of the till closing and saw Jane holding a wodge of £50 so I thought it was likely she had taken the money out of the till" is opinion.