Lottery Winners - Entitlement to Privacy?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118058173#Comment_118058173

Can you show any case where it was not pleaded?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118058355#Comment_118058355

All of them. there is no need for the plaintiff to do so.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118058672#Comment_118058672

Rubbish.

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127

Reynolds took strong exception to the article in the British mainland edition. In the libel proceedings which followed, Mr. Reynolds pleaded that the sting of the article was that he had deliberately and dishonestly misled the Dáil on Tuesday, 15 November 1994 by suppressing vital information. Further, that he had deliberately and dishonestly misled his coalition cabinet colleagues, especially Mr. Spring, the Tanaiste (deputy prime minister) and minister for foreign affairs, by withholding this information and had lied to them about when the information had come into his possession. T

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118058737#Comment_118058737

Can you quote the part where he says it is false? he pleaded what was written and that what was written had defamed him.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118058737#Comment_118058737

What has the Reynolds Defence (Reynolds is UK case law not adopted here - and since abolished in the UK) got to do with showing you must plead the statements were false?

In fact in Reynolds and the subsequent UK case which expanded on Reynolds the Court of Appeal and later House of Lords in the Jameel case reconfirmed (just like in this jurisdiction) the long held position that there was no requirement on a plaintiff to establish any question of a statement being false or even try to show it was false or even that the statement caused any harm to you at all.

The reality is yes in many cases the plaintiff specifically pleads the statement is false and defamatory, but, there are many cases where the plaintiff does not (and why not, they don't have to) plead the statement is false, rather they may plead something along the lines of in it's natural and ordinary meaning the impugned statement meant and was understood to mean something defamatory.

A plaintiff is not required to plead or otherwise establish the statement is in fact false because (a) defamatory statements are not qualified by being false, and (b) they are presumed to be false anyway once held defamatory.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048630#Comment_118048630

I gave you an hypothetical example a few pages back which you have appeared to have ignored. About a much lauded CEO of a homeless charity who was secretly abusing vulnerable victims and then had a story published to that effect when a journalist uncovered the reality.

You appear to think that if you picked up that paper, and were surprised to read that story and learn the truth, that the CEO's reputation would not have been diminished in the eyes of the reasonable person (and presumably your own).

Claw Hammer

From Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127

"The defence of qualified privilege must be seen in its overall setting in the law of defamation. Historically the common law has set much store by protection of reputation. Publication of a statement adversely affecting a person's reputation is actionable. The plaintiff is not required to prove that the words are false. Nor, in the case of publication in a written or permanent form, is he required to prove he has been damaged. But, as Littledale J. said in McPherson v. Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263, 272, 'the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not or ought not to possess"

Note the 'But'

If a Plaintiff wants damages the statement must be false or found to be false.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118074109#Comment_118074109

not of that contradicts anything that has been said to you. it certainly doesn't support your position. You just can't or won't understand what is being said to you. I suspect the latter as you have dug yourself too big a hole.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118074115#Comment_118074115

It doesn't support your position. I have said all along that the proposition that the defamatory statement does not have to be false is too simplistic. A Plaintiff is going to plead it is false in order to make out the sting.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118075955#Comment_118075955

and again you make the same wrong assertion. let it go.

listermint

I think we've established that there's someone that would waste their entire lotto winnings in court and straight into the coffers of solicitors who will no doubt accept it willingly...

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118074109#Comment_118074109

"If a Plaintiff wants damages the statement must be false or found to be false"

To start with this is a point you seem to be missing, statements are not found to be false, they are presumed to be false, as a result the plaintiff does not need to plead or otherwise establish anything in relation to their truth, they can if they so wish, but contrary to what you claim they do not have to, it is assumed the statement is false (even if the statement is indeed true), only the defendant can rebut that presumption.

As to your quote from Reynolds, there is plenty of Irish case law also saying the same, but is not in contradiction to anything we have stated previously, for example note what I stated previously:-

It is important to note there is a difference between a defamatory statement and an action in tort for defamation, there is a defence of truth to the latter

untruthful defamatory statements will result in damages

We have all stated as much that truth is essentially a mitigation against damages, that does not change the fact that a truthful statement can be defamatory and a truthful statement which is presumed untruthful where no defence of truth is raised or raised unsuccessfully can result in damages.

In fact it is clear in Lord Nicholls judgement in Reynolds that he was speaking of the defence of truth in relation to an award of damages and not weather or not the statement was defamatory in the first place, and this is exactly the same position that was held by Sir Littledale in 1892. Anyone familiar with Lord Nicholls quoted line from McPherson vs Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263 will know that both he and Sir Littledale who he quotes were peaking specifically of damages, to expand on the quoted passage in Reynolds, this is what Sir Littledale held:-

Truth is an answer to the action not because it negatives the charge of malice .... but because it shows that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages. For the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not, or ought not, to possess