jc's comment: Whenever LIBEL suits arise, one wonders if we know what that means and how difficult they are to prove.
To succeed in any libel suit, Ravi Naik must show not only that the offending statement is false, but also that Fiona MacKeown either knew it to be false or did not care whether it was true or not. (The bar in Indian libel law might be set a wee bit lower) On 16/03/2008, Gabe Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The burden of proof in libel cases is reversed; in effect Fiona would have to prove that she did not libel..... Please see:- http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan032.pdf Also check up law books on libel. --- jc's response: Dear Gabe, The UK law is different (and ? likely to be amended) than the US and possibly the Indian law. Fighting a 'libel action' is both complex, costly and in may cases fruitless. Effectively - there would have to be three (practical) pre-requisites for this case to succeed a: Ravi Naik would have to have a reputation that was slandered. b: The slander would have caused Ravi Naik to lose his job c: Fiona would have to have money I get the feeling that Ravi Naik is not necessarily Anand Virgincar's favourite politician. Anand has thrown the proverbial gauntlet to him i.e. Hey Ravi ...you want to stand up in court and defend your reputation?! jc BTW: attached ....stuff available on some open mini-law (UK) sites http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defGeneral.shtml This ends my knowledge on the subject ==[ENDS]== Defamation - General and Links . ________________________________ The law of defamation is complex. Rely upon nothing you read here without first taking direct advice on your particular problem. Having said that anyone can be a fully fledged expert on defamation. You need only know to 'Just say No.' Neither encourage actions against you, nor, ever, under whatever provocation, begin a libel action. Defamation protects reputation, no more. Words are defamatory if they tend to reduce the reputation of the claimant in the minds of right thinking members of the public. Words are frequently both defamatory and true. A claimant must show that : Defamatory words (in the relevant and particular context) were published (i.e. somebody other than the claimant and the defendant saw the words, and they caused damage to reputation. The claimant must have a reputation which can be damaged. A defendant may, by way of answer, establish that: one of the essential elements is absent; or the defamatory words are true. This is the atom bomb defence. Whichever wins, claimant or respondent, takes all; or some other (several possibilities) reason protects the publication in law. This may be some form, of privilege, or innocence. a suitable offer of amends has been made There are two sub-species of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including most particularly electronically), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken. In general, mere abuse is not defamatory, but it can take a clever person to insult another without straying over the line into defamation. The better the insult, the closer to the edge.