It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.
It's not online, but PACER shows that there was in fact a large judgement entered by the court against one of the defendants. This isn't really relevant to uBeam, but I want to be sure the facts are straight here.
It's exactly that kind of writing that gets you sued for libel. You take a quote that refers exclusively to a court direction on a motion to dismiss and conflate it with "a large judgement ... against one of the defendents". Whether you intend to or not, it looks like you're trying to find some way of ascribing guilt without having the facts available to support that. And that's what matters, at least in English law, that a piece of writing, taken as a whole is likely to be read as defamatory by a "right-minded person" - the appearance in the mind of the reader is what counts. I know wherewith of what I speak, I used to be a journalist and I've had formal training in libel law as my publisher, Felix Dennis, didn't like being sued (you may remember a little thing called the Oz trial).
Editted to add (and correct one literal above): It just occurs to me that the people who did our libel training were very good. It's many years later and I remember all of it. More importantly, while I was writing I got several companies very angry with me, with good justification on my behalf (i.e. I said that crap products were crap), but we never got sued so I think the training paid off. /Edit
... but no, it's never libel to mistakenly rely on an inaccurate source.
Good luck telling the judge that, he will tell you different. There's no need to prove malice in a libel claim, carelessness or recklessness is quite adequate.
(Otherwise, any time a media outlet got something wrong, every reader who told a friend something would be guilty of libel.)
It's not "libel", it's slander and only then when monetary loss can be proven. And not "guilty" as defamation is a tort, a civil wrong, not a crime.
I'm sorry I screwed up, and didn't check sources carefully enough.
The expressed remorse might take a few quid off, but your last five words probably just doubled the damages. Just imagine counsel for the appellant, at your libel trial, saying: "So, Mr. Smith, before you
rushed to accuse my client in print of fraud, did you check your sources? Did you
bother to find out the truth before blackening my client's character? Or were you so hell bent on doing him harm that you were
completely reckless as to the veracity of your claims?".
A public apology, at least as prominent as the original libel, and a retraction, is actually a defense in a libel action. It might be a good idea to cover your arse and issue one.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
