Intellectual Property Law

RECORD U.K. INTERNET LIBEL CASE YIELDS $200,000 AWARD

By IBLS Editor

An executive in the British property sector has been awarded record Internet libel damages by a British court in one of the first-ever cases regarding online harassment by a business rival in the U.K. The recipient was Peter Walls 55, a social housing company chief executive at Gentoo Group. He won after it was proved he was scurrilously defamed while at his business Sunderland Nothern England. He received an award of $198,000.  Walls explained to the judge how he, his staff and family were abused via Internet over a period of two years. Walls described the case as centering on a hate campaign which he called ?a nightmare.? Walls' company, Gentoo Group Ltd, and several other unnamed people had already accepted almost 20,000 pounds in damages, previous to this case.

Wall's opponent at law was John Finn, who admits to being behind the offending website called ?Dad's Place Publications? that posted false stories about Walls and fellow colleagues, ranging from charges of corruption and nepotism to the promotion of women employees in exchange for sexual acts. Finn had an interest in many properties in areas chosen for demolition and rebuilding by Gentoo. Finn agreed to pay £100,000, being the largest-ever Internet libel settlement in England.

Walls, his family and 30 Gentoo employees were subjected to "vicious and unpleasant anonymous, defamatory attacks," High Court judge David Eady was told. His house had to be fitted with police alarms after it was repeatedly attacked, while his paramour, Caroline, 40, and their children were gripped with fear for their safety.

The High Court was detailed as to how the website sustained a "malicious, unpleasant and relentless campaign of libel and harassment against Gentoo and various persons associated with it." Said Walls, "It has not just been a single time, it has been day after day and that has been very difficult to live with. It is terribly intimidating and frightening and I think the people that did this knew that."

The court was informed that the two-year harassment campaign began in April 2004 when John Finn, a prominent businessman and fierce competitor to Walls, created a site called "Dad's Place? via his company, Pallion Housing Ltd. Finn, a housing landlord then directed other persons to use the now-disabled website, its anonymous forum areas, and an associated newsletters to create and publish a multitude of false accusations, the court was told. The fake stories included one claiming Walls was a pedophile, another that he was a thief and corrupt, that he had hired assassins to execute hits, and that he regularly preyed upon his harried staff for sexual favors, while bullying the rest. Wall's family also became alarmed when they realized their every move was scrutinized and then detailed online.

Wall's family then became subject of local gossip and scorn when the website's contents spilled out across the the community, especially after Finn took great pains and expense to publicize the scabrous charges. Walls insists the site was begun to blackmail him to cause his company to pay more for homes that Finn was selling to Gentoo. Finn, who was sued by Walls for libel, originally denied responsibility for the Internet content. But the court found there was abundant evidence to prove he was responsible, and he was found guilty of publishing the material during a trial last year. Walls has demanded an overhaul of current Internet Defamation law to help future victims to receive a "quicker and more effective route to justice."

Barrister Hugh Tomlinson, representative for Walls and his company, described the Internet published material as "seriously defamatory, abusive and scurrilous." He added, "From behind their cloak of anonymity, Dad's Place used their publications and in particular the Web site to conduct a malicious, unpleasant and relentless campaign of libel and harassment. Mr Walls was forced to withstand an almost daily barrage of anonymous allegations, threats, and abuse and suffered very serious damage to his professional and personal reputation. Many other Gentoo employees were subject to wholly unacceptable levels of harassment and abuse."

Defamation law expert Rod Dadak of Lewis Silkin,  claims that "The substantial payout is a useful reminder of the need to show extreme care in posting material on the Internet. Reputation Management is increasingly important and the Internet plays a big part or can play a big part in promoting and destroying reputations. Internet vets are an increasingly essential protection to be used to ensure that rogue defamers are not at work."

To better understand the law of Libela, U.K. Law on this is found in the Defamation Act 1996 CHAPTER 31

The Act states:

Responsibility for publication
1 Responsibility for publication
(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that?
(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,
(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
(2) For this purpose ?author?, ?editor? and ?publisher? have the following meanings, which are further explained in subsection (3)?
? ?author? means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;
? ?editor? means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and
? ?publisher? means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.
(3) A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved?
(a) in printing, producing, distributing or selling printed material containing the statement;
(b) in processing, making copies of, distributing, exhibiting or selling a film or sound recording (as defined in Part I of the [1988 c. 48.] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) containing the statement;
(c) in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on which the statement is recorded, or in operating or providing any equipment, system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form;
(d) as the broadcaster of a live programme containing the statement in circumstances in which he has no effective control over the maker of the statement;
(e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control.
In a case not within paragraphs (a) to (e) the court may have regard to those provisions by way of analogy in deciding whether a person is to be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement.
(4) Employees or agents of an author, editor or publisher are in the same position as their employer or principal to the extent that they are responsible for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it.
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a person took reasonable care, or had reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement, regard shall be had to?
(a) the extent of his responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it,
(b) the nature or circumstances of the publication, and
(c) the previous conduct or character of the author, editor or publisher.
(6) This section does not apply to any cause of action which arose before the section came into force.

Full post as published by IBLS Internet Law Blog on May 04, 2008 (boomark / email).