Right, my easy to follow guide to defamation laws in England and Wales.
There are 2 types: libel (or defamation per se) and slander.
So let's break them down:
1)
The test for libel
(NB - This was the cause of action used in the forum suing case)
a) There must be a publication
b) This publication must be of a permanent nature
c) Said publication must cause "hatred, ridicule or contempt" of the person defamed.
If these three are fulfilled then there is a prima facie case.
It is then for the Jury to decide how badly you were defamed (or if you were defamed at all) and grant appropriate damages.
2)
The test for slander
a) 'slanderous comments' must be communicated about you
b) These comments must be communicated to a third party (so you can't sue for a private conversation between A and B where A slanders B. But you can if A and B have a conversation where C is slandered)
c) slanderous comments are comments which suggest that the slandered person:
1) is guilty of a criminal offence
2) is unfit in his trade or profession
3) has a communicable disease
or 4) (women only) is 'un-chaste'
d) If the comments don't fit within one of those 4 limbs then you have to show that they caused "hatred, ridicule or contempt" AND that you suffered some special damage because of them.
Special damage is a real harm done to you because of the comments. So for instance if the comments were "he's a compulsive liar" and you didn't get a job because of it. Or the comments were "he sleeps with prostitutes" and you got sacked because of them.
3)
Defenses to libel and slander
a) The comments made or published fact is
True.
b) The comments made or published fact is
Fair Comment. Fair comment is a genuinely held opinion: so if you write "this play is really shit" and you have seen the play then that is fair comment. If you haven't seen the play then it's not fair comment.
c) The comments made or published fact is merely
Vulgar Abuse. The vulgar abuse defence would cover things like "you are a spastic". To be vulgar abuse the comment/published words must be improbable. So calling someone a Nazi in an internet forum would be vulgar abuse, unless there was a serious danger that the comments might be taken seriously.
d)
Privilege: the person making the comments/publishing the words had a duty to pass on information to someone (the recipient of the comments or the readers of the publication) and they had an interest in recieving them.
4)
Problems with suing in defamation
a)
Fees. Legal fees by both solicitors and barristers in defamation are exceedingly high. The Claiment has to gather the evidence to prove his case. If you win the case you may be entitled to claim the amount of your fees paid out from the defendant, but cases can take years. If you lose you don't get them back.
(NB Neil Hamilton was nearly bankrupted by the legal fees for his case)
b)
Juries. Defamation cases use juries to assess damages and to apply the legal test. Juries are capricious and unpredictable at the best of times.
And basically that's it