Employee Legal Awareness Day takes place every year on 13 February. It encourages employers to warn their employees of predictable legal mistakes so that they can be avoided such as the ten listed in this podcast.  It was established in about 2007 by Paul Brennan and has been taken up internationally.  https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2023/02/employee-legal-awareness-day-coming-monday/

  Thank you to all the subscribers to my podcast for their encouragement. The podcast is available at this link https://www.buzzsprout.com/666235 

If you are a person of strong views, who calls a spade a spade the law of defamation will protect you if what you have said is true or substantially true. Even where what you have said proves to be untrue there are defences : 1. Absolute Privilege. If you are repeating something said or otherwise published in parliament or some other judicial type body. Therefore, if you can convince your local MP to mention in parliament your neighbour’s drunken, cursing, fence disputing, lousy child raising behaviour, then you can tell the world with impunity. 2. If you are summarising public documents or reporting on public proceedings providing you, do not stray too far from an honest appraisal. 3. Qualified Privilege. If you give information to a person, who has an interest in being told that information and you act reasonably without malice, e.g. If you mistakenly inform the police that your neighbour is a serial killer (not an uncommon suspicion). However, to post it on Instagram with photograph...

  All coppers are bastards, or at least that is what most football crowds would have you believe.  Yet, despite it being broadcast to the nation and repeated on Match of the Day, policemen do not tend to sue for defamation. This is more because defamatory statements are usually ignored or treated in kind rather than police officers having a sense of fun. As an alternative to violence (or a good kicking in the back of a police van), a court action for defamation comes as a poor second.  Most people want a grovelling apology and compensation.  They usually settle for an early apology and modest or no compensation even if they have a strong case.  Nevertheless, they can also enter into a death struggle with their intransigent defamer as they face the anxiety of a trial with their homes on the line, until both sides spend some money and decide it is not worth it, or their spouses tell them to knock it off. As the defamed, you can claim for financial loss such as los...

   A newspaper once held the front page, “Local priest arrested for child pornography”.  Except for publishing the wrong priest’s picture, it was a great scoop.  The editor apologised immediately and was forgiven (save for judgement day when he will probably get it in the neck).     When you get your fifteen minutes of fame, will the newspaper editor apologise to you immediately?  Answer: probably not. Your attempts to explain catapult your picture (the correct one) with defamatory comment onto the front page.    Even your spouse finds the criticism a little harsh, which shows you just how bad it is.    You see your lawyer.  He is outraged and advises you to burn down the newspaper office and run the editor out of town on a rail.  But you insist on using the law.  Disappointed, he writes a letter to the newspaper and a lawyer responds offering you the chance to put forward your side of the story.  You are re...

  Dear John, I admit that I am a good communicator, but to label me a gossip is both hurtful and defamatory. I am a caring person and if I do pass on information it is for the good of the community, even if it turns out to be wrong. Alternatively, it is entertaining tittle tattle. Surely the law is not taking away the basic right of a chat between acquaintances, however distant? (name and address withheld) Dear Enquirer, The victims of gossip, understandably, often turn out to have no sense of humour about it at all. If you have gone too far, a quick apology, given and accepted, is the best course of action for all parties. The alternative is to wait and see if the victim will sue you for defamation which can be a successful strategy, depending on the seriousness of your defamatory statements. Lawyers and probably spouses can help even stubborn people to assess the stupidity of their statements. You could claim “qualified privilege” in that you acted reasonably, not recklessly in m...

Libel is the written word.  Slander is the spoken word.  If you must defame someone then it is best to choose slander as it is harder to prove that you said it. However, with the advent of email most people prefer to write their insults down. This is exceptionally good evidence or exceptionally bad evidence depending on which side you are on. It is not enough to insult your enemy to their face; someone else needs to hear it to make it defamation.  It needs to be “published”.  A letter in a local newspaper or post on Facebook is a perfectly adequate way to publish a defamatory statement as is shouting it at the top of your voice.  Both popular methods. Saying a few bad words about someone is one thing.  But the important question is how much damage have your words done, as that will determine the “damages” (the amount of money to be awarded by a court). Another factor to take into account is how big the audience is.  If you are keen to raise the defamat...