| It is natural
for a person to be offended when another person makes disparaging
statements about his character, his professional competence, or his
credit, and his first angry reaction may be to wish to sue for defamation.
His legal adviser will, however, most likely urge a cautious approach,
pointing out that the law of defamation is complex, that the claimant
has many hurdles to jump, and that the defendant can set up a number
of potentially impenetrable defences. Moreover, the defendant may
be an impecunious person who is ‘not worth suing’.
Accordingly,
the victim’s
attorney will consider very carefully the content of the alleged
defamatory statement and the context in which the words were
spoken or written in order to assess whether the words complained
of were defamatory in
law; and unless the publisher of the statement is a newspaper
or other media outlet with ‘deep pockets’, he may
advise an investigation of the financial status of the potential
defendant, as his client will need to be assured that if he wins
the case, he will be able to recover damages and, more importantly,
the costs of the action from the defendant. Conversely,
the claimant must be made aware of the danger that if he loses
the case he may have to pay a heavy price in costs. On the
other hand, the defendant’s attorney
will be likely to concentrate on establishing that the statement
complained of was not defamatory in law, and/or that his client
is entitled to rely on one or more of the defences of (1) Truth
(ie that the statement was true of the claimant), (2) Fair comment
on a matter of public interest (a defence frequently relied on
by newspapers), and (3) Privilege (ie that the statement was
made ‘on a privileged occasion’, such as in a report
to the police, in a negative employee reference, in an internal
company memorandum). The law of Defamation in Barbados is based on
English common law, as modified by the Barbados Defamation Act
1996. |
