« Human Rights Review Tribunal serious about privacy damages | Main
Defamation damages too…
By Steven | January 24, 2025
A couple of recent cases suggest that the courts are awarding significant sums for defamation even where the publication is very small. This is despite the new rule that says plaintiffs, if challenged, have to show that the publication they are complaining about has caused them “more then minor harm.” When publication is limited to a small number of people, that might be difficult, though the courts certainly take account of who the recipients are. A defamatory email to your boss might well be enough alone to get over the harm threshold.
Two recent cases suggest that the threshold is not very high, and that publications to limited audiences can cause serious harm. In one, the defendant sent two emails to a married couple, trying to warn them against a rival accountant, alleging sexual impropriety and professional misconduct. The misconduct allegation was exaggerated but not unfounded, but the allegation of sexual relationships with clients was wrong. The judge awarded $50,000.
In another, the defendant made two comments on a car dealer’s Facebook page, under a particular car listing, suggesting (falsely) that the car had been stolen. There were no other comments, and the only evidence that anyone had read it was from the person who appeared as the plaintiff’s McKenzie friend (a support person in a court case where the party is not represented by a lawyer). The judge was entitled to draw inferences about the extent of publication, but wasn’t prepared to infer that anyone else had read it. Still, the judge seemed to have no problem finding that the harm threshold was surmounted and awarded $20,000.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Defamation damages too…
Comments are closed.