So b basically made a fb page against an ex employer https://www.facebook.com/pages/Total-Energy-Systems-Queensla…
Now he is claiming defimation and says next week his lawyer will contact me
If i only wrote the truth can i get in trouble
Defamation case against me
Comments
- 1
- 2
I can prob prove mostly all of it
kewl
Its not about whether its the truth or not. Thats not the sole reason for deciding defamation.
E.g if someone is gay. Then even though its true, you can't then post it all over the internet.
Or someone did something and you took a picture of it. Then it doesn't mean you can just post the pic up without regard for consequences.
Nah, if you can prove it's true then it is not defamation (in Victoria at least)
In fact, if you say some true things and some false things, and it's only the true things that hurt their reputation, then it is also not defamation.
See: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/da200599/…
hmmmm :/
Even if you don't get into trouble, Facebook is not where you should be venting your dissatisfaction :/ . That is very immature.
I understand your feelings of 'needing revenge' (I have a current, similar issue myself) but you should not be doing it on Facebook.
sorry :(Um … why is Facebook not the place to publish anything he/she pleases?
actually facebook is the place for social comment.
so where should he do it then? Help him out
IANAL but keep in mind recorded calls without the other party's consent may not be admissible in court. If you're courting on those recorded calls as evidence, you could be out of luck.
haha Just leak the calls to the internet and press. Then let the Australian government try to rescue you due to the press putting on the heat. We do that for convicted drug smugglers, i'm sure we would do that for you!
Nah call ACA. I'm sure Tracey Grimshaw could do something about it.
Worst acronym ever.
So not only did you let this creep get away with ripping this poor customer of you also let him list on this site with no retribution.
Best thing you can do is just let it go and move on with your own life.
As long as you have this attitude i hope every ripoff agent in this world screws you over.
Totally called for…I am really getting sick of whimps leaving problems for someone else to sort out. Did you report this former employer? did you follow it thru? Did you inform his customer?.. I doubt it you buried your head in the sand and said not my problem.
I can only assume the neg's are from people who have the same attitude as Drew22. I am alright Jack stuff you.@coin saver:
You realise you're making all this crap up yourself CS? You don't actually have any idea what Drew22 did. So in a sense, you're kind of arguing with yourself, and it looks really bad mate; just chill out a bit aye? From memory I've quite enjoyed reading some of your prior posts, and I'm not trying antagonise you here… I reckon on this one you've gone off 'half cocked' though; you're clearly making a lot of assumptions about what Drew22 did or didn't do, then attacking him based on those assumptions.Take a step back hombre, and move on from this one?
@GnarlyKnuckles: Sorry i do not feel i am making assumptions when Drew22 makes the comment
Best thing you can do is just let it go and move on with your own life. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain from this.
He implies turn your head to avoid seeing a wrong and rectifying it.Did Drew22 follow this up when he changed employment or notify the relevant government department. Interesting Drew22 uses "Are you on drugs?" as his defence..What did you do to rectify these wrongs Drew22?.. I know you buried your head in the sand and said I'm alright Jack stuff you.
@coin saver: It has nothing to do with you, everything you said was absolutely an assumption.
I made a statement, and you made assumptions based on that.If you would like, I can help you and get you a dictionary.
I don't need to defend myself, I did nothing wrong.
Why are you so hellbent on attacking me? Why don't you go after the sketchy business instead?Best thing you can do is just let it go and move on with your own life. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain from this.
Follow your own advice
I don't need to defend myself, I did nothing wrong
That is the point going by your statement
Best thing you can do is just let it go and move on with your own life. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain from this.
You didn't do anything at all.
@coin saver: Is it a fact that I did nothing? How do you know what I did or didn't do.
So why are you so hellbent on attacking me and not the business?
So why are you so hellbent on attacking me and not the business?
Because he doesn't know which business it is but you do.
So attack someone that did no wrong?
But was he right about this part?
So not only did you let this creep get away with ripping this poor customer of you also let him list on this site with no retribution.
Regardless, you can't blame someone for what another person did.
Nah, he wasn't blaming you for something someone else did (he didn't blame you for scamming). It was for you not standing up to it (or he thought you didn't.. Who knows).
"You scam ppl" and "you knowingly watch ppl being scammed" - are two different accusations.Never share your story in OZbargain. Based on most of "Hot discussion Topic" which I saw, in a nutshell, You always got neg without any reason even though you think you're right.
Their expectation of "what is right" is high like a skyrocket.
Yep…remember karma
That's one of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, ain't it?
Karma doesn't actually exist I'm sorry to say.
But actually he did cost me money i had to spend on flights i just want it back
The thing is, you might have shot yourself in the foot here. In all liklihood, if the facts/liability are as clean-cut as you imply, you could have gotten the money back by filing a case in the small-claims court. Most often, if the defendant know's that they were in the wrong/ have caused undue financial loss to someone else, their lawyer would just advise them to pay you out, prior to the case being heard.
But now, you've well-and-truly lost the moral high-ground.
What you have done will look really bad in a small-claims court case, and could even result in you not only losing, but being asked to pay the other side's legal costs.
This.
I don't understand why you thought to take it up on Facebook of all places instead of an official, mature, legal route which would actually ensure that you'd get your money back (if indeed that is what you're owed).
If i only wrote the truth can i get in trouble
I doubt it but can you prove it. I suspect he is trying to bluff you, wouldn't his lawyer have contacted you immediately?
but small claims costs right
"…but small claims costs right"
Not if you can prove that you were in the right, have acted reasonably/responsibly throughout, and were wronged. If you can do that, then they pay all your application/court-fees. Which is precisely why, if they know you can prove it, they pay you out before it gets to court. It's designed that way, to stop "open-and-shut" cases ever even making it to court. But what you did on Face-book may well render all this irrelevant. Some magistrates would consider that unreasonable, the wrong thing to do; defamatory or otherwise.
I have only said the truth on there
INAL - from what I understand, companies can not sue for deformation only individuals can. Perhaps remove the details of the director and focus on the business details if you want to go down this path
"… companies can not sue for deformation" [sic]
Erm, who told you that? Why couldn't a company sue for defamation?
I think what the OP wants reassurance on, is whether in a legal sense, something can be deemed "defamatory", if it does not contain any false information. IMHO, the answer is no. Legal defamation, to the best of my knowledge, requires a false statement or implication.
But I will insert the rather humourous acronym I just learned today in this thread here:
IANAL
Lunchtime is somewhat correct, but it relates to large corporations. s9(2) of the Defamation Act states a non-listed company employing less than 10 employees and not related to another company does hold a cause of action in defamation.
OP should read Act, its rather small and straight forward with attention to Division 2 which sets out defences.
Well strictly speaking lunchtime is incorrect, and you are correct, but that's all by the way… Of course larger companies can still sue, but it comes under a different name/type of offense/scale of damages that can be awarded etc.
Given that you were in fact wrong, but all of a sudden seem to have keen legal expertise not evident in your post, I'm most curious to find out about this "different name/type of offense/scale of damages" you refer to.
@ATD:
"Given that you were in fact wrong…"
What was I wrong about?
"I'm most curious to find out about this "different name/type of offense/scale of damages" you refer to."
Check out 'injurious falsehood', for a start.
Cat got yer tongue all of a sudden ATD? I assume it means you've transitioned into a learning mood… so here's a link to some info' you may find informative:
http://www.turnerfreeman.com.au/nsw/defamation-claims/injuri…
I'm in no way affiliated with these guys btw; but the page does describe some aspects of injurious falsehood in relatively simple terms. So it should do nicely. ;P
No, cat doesn't have my tongue, I was doing far more interesting things like wondering what I was going to have for breakfast tomorrow and why keanu reeves did the two Japanese themed movies of late. I've also learnt long ago not to get caught up arguing with ppl who think they are an authority based on google searches and those who edit their first knee jerk reply to make it look to the lesser informed that they know what they are talking about. A learned person, which you clearly are not, wouldn't:
a. make reference to a site published by a law firm (NSW one at that) instead of primary authority; and
b. make reference to a remedy that does not relate to the circumstances of the situation as clearly set out by the OP and the FB page.Theory and application are what sets apart the amateur hacks and those who know what they are talking about in the real world.
If you are going to wonder why I won't make any further replies, that will be because I've lost interest in this discussion.
@ATD:
You juz keep believing all that muchacho, if it makes you feel a bit better. But methinks that 'deep down', you realise what has happened here.Peace :)
@GnarlyKnuckles:
Lol. Injurious falsehood is an old common law tort which has all but been replaced by the trade practices act and now the ACL.That is probably why the person giving useful (and actually correct) advice stopped replying.
(And yes I have real sources with which I can back this up.)
If you made submissions in court that contained such references that submission wouldn't even be considered.
Arguing law goes with citing law. By all means proceed with your 'injurious falsehood' checkmate just use something that is legal authority.
IANAL
Is that a new apple product?
can they prove it's your page and not someone else doing it?
That would be relatively easy to prove, given the 'digital trail'; even if it was set-up on a pute with a VPN running, I bet it has been repeatedly accessed by other putes/phones known to the 'perpetraitor' …
Consider this: Defense's lawyer contacts FaceBook, asks for relevant page-accession information. FB says "well, there was a heap of hits on 03April2015, all emanating from the same link; posted by someone on a site called… "OzBargain"… (I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this…); it's now in the 'public domain' that it was the OP that set up the page.So it would be extremely silly to deny it in court, only to have it subsequently proven that it was in fact you; then you would defo' wear all the defense's legal costs (not just court fees), and possibly be done for perjory, etc. etc.
Whatever you do, don't make this relatively small problem into a massive one, by doing sommat really stupid like lying in court about the facts of the matter.
Ah, and for this sage advice I score a "drive-by" (= gutless/uncommented) neg… Chuckle, this site never ceases to amuse me…
You continue to give quasi-legal "advice" while demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about (such as calling the company's lawyers the "defence".
I think that is worthy of a neg or two.
"such as calling the company's lawyers the "defence"."
Yeah that was a slight (inconsequential) error… but it's not like I implied that there was no equivalent of defamation that companies could use to sue someone, or anything silly like that.
"You continue to give quasi-legal "advice"…"
It was my understanding that that was what the OP came here seeking. What do you think the OP wanted? A good recipe for a cheese-cake?
And your pompous, nasty attitude is garbage mate. Sort yourself out.
Of course it was me he and i know this
Lol, thought so. I reckon what is most likely to happen is what someone suggested above; you will get a "cease and desist" order. My advice is to just take the page down now, and move on. Life is too short to waste any more time on this than you already have. Had you not set up the FB page, my advice would have been to take him to small claims court to get your airfares back; more on principal than anything else. But as I've said, that is no longer a viable/ risk-free option, IMHO; juz draw a line under it hombre.
Wait until you receive a request in writing to take it down.
In the meantime check your site for anything over the top.Ozbargain it's not really the place to get legal advice. If you want actual free legal advice go to a community legal centre
what do u mean, we give great advice
find some bikies, or batman
To start a defamation case would be in the order of $15k to $20k put into your Solicitor's trust account. People claiming to sue rarely do.
from what i remember from undergrad law, defamation cases are very difficult to prove so most are unsuccessful for the plaintiff
Get some free legal advice.
Defamation is hard to prove and a telling the truth (and being able to prove it) is a defense.
But I cannot emphasise enough: go and see a lawyer in a community centre which should be free.
Also, for people purporting to give what can be construed as legal advice here (just for information):
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/tyre-king-bob-jan…
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/16209-legal-watchdog-pu…
To the mods: maybe you should prohibit legal topics here just to cover your backsides and protect your users.
Its hardly the same - the above involved drafting court documents.
Take it from me - the law societies of Australia will pursue you if they are aware you provide any kind of advice which could be construed as legal advice and where it is likely that the person given advice changes their legal position based upon the advice given by you and where it was reasonable for such outcome to occur.
Just because in the case mentioned drafting was involved does not make it any less illegal.
For example, look at the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) at sections 22 following. Look at section 24 where it stipulates that the maximum sentence can be two years in jail so it is no laughing matter.
The other states have equivalent Acts.https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/l/legalp…
Not worth arguing here. It is very, very clear.
Perhaps look at AFL v the Age for the courts view on anonymous internet forums and the reliability of the material therein. (note - not legal advice!!! ;)
I agree if someone held themselves out with authority it might be different. But banter on a forum?
I would not want to risk it. If one was to take some of the comments and show them to a third party without telling that party where they are from I am not so sure if people would not think that those comments constitute legal advice.
In any case, the law societies are the regulatory body - I would not fancy the chances if they take a case to court.The case you mentioned is a defamation case which has no ratio decidendi on the legal advice issue which means it is irrelevant and not applicable here.
Don't give any advice that could constitute legal advice (citing the case could be held to be an indicator for legal advice, for example) unless you are legally qualified - end of story.
Saying it does not constitute legal advice does not rebut the substance and does not make a difference if in fact the advice given does constitute legal advice. It is not form over substance in law."Don't give any advice that could constitute legal advice (citing the case could be held to be an indicator for legal advice, for example) unless you are legally qualified"
Surely if someone asks your opinion on something, there is no law stating that you cannot give them your opinion on it; qualified or not? Surely the law relates to charging people for your advice, or misrepresenting yourself as qualified when you are not, and the like?
For example, you seem to be suggesting that if a mate asks you what your opinion is on a legal matter at a BBQ (asks you what you would do in their situation), it is illegal to express an opinion. Or let's take it a step further. Based on what you are saying, it would be illegal to advise your wife on what you think she should do, in a legal situation. Surely, that's rubbish?
BBQ is all right (although if you tell your mate you know that something is the legal situation for sure and he relies on it and gets burned, you can still find yourself in trouble) but as several people mentioned this is a public forum. That makes a difference.
Re the wife example: that again is a special case as is easily gleaned by the fact that a wife cannot be forced to make a statement in court which is detrimental to her husband or indeed to make a statement at all if her husband is charged.I am assuming that (a) the wife situation does not apply, and (b) obviously this is not private but public.
So unfortunately, making statements which could be construed as legal advice in public, is illegal.If you ever talk to immigration, or a university, everybody there is very quick and keen to emphasise they cannot give legal advice on immigration matters.
The reason for that readiness to clarify this is the Legal Profession Act.Lawyers want to protect their domain, just like doctors, psychologists, engineers, architects etc. Lawyers also have professional insurance to protect the public which people on Ozbargain won't have I assume.
The safest advice is: unless you are a lawyer, don't give advice in legal matters. And in fact, many forums I know expressly prohibit legal matters to be discussed on their sites and forums, just to be on the safe side.
@Gnarlyknuckles
Did you open that link Lysander put up?
Did you read section 24 of that Act?The examples you have held out are actually examples that they use in first year law when they talk about situations where it is not wise to give legal advice.
e.g. Mate asks a law student what he should do at a bbq when discussing defamation.
Law student gives a fairly good answer generally on the defences and remedies
mate does something that the law student said
mate's situation was actually totally different to he explained to the law student, and he gets pinged for it
mate goes after the law student for giving bad legal adviceThe answers that people should be giving on ozbargains where people are seeking help on a legal situation should be - seeking a community legal centre, going to a solicitor, going to the law society to find the right solicitor if you don't know which solicitor to go to.
"Its hardly the same - the above involved drafting court documents."
This is absolutely right. The sole (single) example you have erroneously provided two links to is irrelevant to the sentiments you are repeatedly airing in this thread; it involves misrepresentation.
Re your suggestion that the OP should:
"…go and see a lawyer in a community centre which should be free."
Do you perhaps mean that as long as the OP is under the means-tested income for free legal advice applied by their nearest 'community legal centre' (assuming there is one), that then it 'should be' free, also assuming they can get an appointment in time for it to be of any practical use?
And lastly, re your suggestion to the mods:
"To the mods: maybe you should prohibit legal topics here just to cover your backsides and protect your users"
This is straight-up ridiculous, and could potentially be construed as scare-mongering. If that type of logic was to be applied to all fields, rather than just the one you yourself happen to be qualified in, then also nothing medical could be discussed on this site, and ditto for anything relating to electrical circuits, gas, car-safety, construction, DIY home-reno, dieting, exercise, psychology, financial investment etc. etc.
Legal advice in my community centre is free as the lawyers work pro bono.
Obviously you have nothing else to do. Do you see what I mean with people being "hostile and provocative"?
See other people's comments who also refer to free legal advice in community centres.
You must be taking the p… here.@Lysander:
By repeatedly and patronisingly suggesting that OzB users should stop sharing opinions and advice with each other on anything that could potentially be construed as "legal", you have certainly provoked a lot of ill-will. So I guess you are right, that users can be very provocative.And surely starting a thread asking the OzB community to advise you on the legalities of refilling large gas bottle yourself at service stations, while simultaneously/ in a different thread admonishing the OzB users/mods/etc. for giving legal advice, is 'provocative'?
The post is not about the legality but whether it is possible. There is a big difference but you would not understand.
By the way, the only person patronising is you - see your last post where you assumed I was jealous or bitter. Very amusing.
I am looking forward to your posts now - they always make my day.
Thank you.
Also, your "IANAL" is not the best acronyms as it might suggest something which you did not intend. :-))@Lysander:
Just about anything is possible hombre; you were clearly asking whether it was legal, and it is feeble to pretend otherwise. I certainly did not 'assume' you are jealous/bitter; you made it crystal clear, in your lengthy whinge to one of the mods in which you made a series of bizarre suggestions/accusations/allusions to Switzerland etc. The things you've said about the users getting paid for posting, comparisons with you-tube, etc. are absolute proof that you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about when it comes to such things.And re "IANAL"; surely you don't really think it's clever to recycle my own jokes back to me? Are you that unimaginitive/devoid-of-wit that you cannot come up with anything even remotely humourous of your own? Perhaps that is why all of your posts seem to provoke almost reflexive opposition… they're just a predictable mixture of patronism, BS, naivety, etc.; no humour or wit! I've been trying to put my finger on exactly why they were so irksome, and that is it!
Anyways, glad I can make your day hombre… keep your 'usual form' up, and I will continue to do so :)
Was the title not "Refilling of gas bottles for home use - is it possible to do it yourself at petrol stations"?
If I wanted to know about the legality, the title would read "Refilling of gas bottles for home use - is it legal to do it yourself at petrol stations"
I really did mean whether it was physically possible, in other words, whether the pump at the stations are compatible with the big gas bottles as I had read articles that some people claimed it was possible.
Thanks. Keep the posts coming. You are a star in our office now. Maybe I let some of my colleagues reply to you so you can claim that you know why the posts are so irksome even though there are different people posting. ;-)
@Lysander:
I reckon I'll know it's not you straight away; you have this unique… 'style' let's call it. If they say anything even vaguely clever, witty, insightful, or mature, I will 'smell a rat'!You already lost that one mate.
What you call "style", is common sense and social justice and everybody in the office has that as otherwise we would not be working for little money.@Lysander:
"common sense and social justice…"Erm… so the fact that you have 'not garnered general support on here' let's say (to put it politely) does not tell you something about your 'common sense'? And frankly, I refuse to believe that there could be a whole office full of people that feel the need to constantly bleat about what a selfless person they are because they do pro bono legal work for the poor etc.; The peeps who do that stuff for the right reasons just crack on and do it, quietly behind the scenes… they don't make a constant song and dance about the fact that they do it, at every available opportunity. What that reveals, is that the real reason you're doing it, is in fact so that you can tell people all about it. Or because no one's actually willing to pay you because you're just a crap solicitor/paralegal/whatever the case may be…
Put one of your colleagues on the line would ya? I wanna ask them a few probing questions about your work-ethic, and their perception of your true motives.
Thanks. Keep the posts coming. You are a star in our office now.
If you are in a legal office i suspect that they are looking at your replies and laughing at you.
A sensible move posting here. Im no lawyer - but I cant possibly see how posting a link to your alleged defamatory website on a high traffic consumer website could feasibly aggravate your situation.
The Facebook link is not accessible anymore so the OP took the advice which has been given above already.
I did
Didn't get a chance to see it. :(
Any chance of posting again?
You already posted it once, so if you are worried about extra ramifications, you already did it, so it doesn't matter anymore.
The likelihood of any suit anyway is next to none.
I thought an individual couldn't be charged for defaming a business anymore ?
only if it has 10 or more employees
Better start practising using shampoo instead of soap.
Man…reading the top forum topics it seems everybody on OzBargain is getting sued but me :(
If you're feeling left out p-eater, set up a FB page called "GnarlyKnuckles wears big girl's blouses" or sommat along those lines, and I'll sue ya for defamation. I'll take ya for all ya ENELOOPS!
Does any one have a screenshot of the page? I am a bit late to the party… can't access the page any more.
Thanks!
"Now, I'm not a fancy, big-city lawyer…" (or maybe I am), but either way Lysander should get back to us when he knows the difference between the black letter of the law and the way the system actually operates.
Hang on a second, what's that? The jack boot thugs of the Queensland Law Society at my door? Quick, grab my tin foil hat!
I see you are in Brisbane. Go and ask them whether they view it as a laughing matter and do spot checks. They are not far from the Central Station. About 5 minutes walk. And make sure you point them to Ozbargain while you are at it, to draw their attention to it.
Maybe I am from the Law Society or maybe I am not????
;-)
Chuckle, I must say I agree with you Daab… Lysander has been helpful at times, but as for suggesting that no one should ever say anything that could be construed as legal advice (in other words, say what they think about legal matters) in a chat-room or public forum unless they're qualified; that's BS IMHO.
Lys now says that actually it's 'all right' (does that mean legal?) if it's in private (see BBQ example above), or if it's your wife (though why 'spousal privilege' or whatever it's called is relevant here I don't know; that privilege doesn't actually change the law does it? Isn't it just some clause you can evoke to get out of having to testify?); so it seems Lys over-stated things. I'd like to actually know what the letter of the law really is on this.
Personally, I'd be surprised if it was illegal for me to stand on the corner of Flinders Street at peak hour and chant legal advice (or plumbing advice, or political advice etc.) even though I'm not qualified. As long as I wasn't doing so in any official capacity, charging anyone money, or pretending that I was qualified, what law would I be breaking by doing that Lys?
- 1
- 2
How can you prove that what you wrote is the truth ?