Defamation is quite clear..
You can not lower anothers reuputation to one or more persons, unless it is an obvious joke of which the average person would understand and not take as truthfull.
I watched it and thought after Fatty said he was drunk that he probbaly was or just camera shy. The average person, as witnessed by the resposces here, probbaly also thought he was drunk.
truth is a defence against defamation but that is not applicable here. Also you can call a murderer anything you like because their repuation is already poor, so saying they cheated on their wife would do no harm.
Lowering ones reuptation can be done a number of ways. Saying that someone is drinking on the job is clear example of that.
You cant view someone looking at a bill henson portrait and call them a peadopfile.
They have a clear case against The Footy Show.
but...
i doubt they will win much money.
the family has contributed to most of the publicity and it was obvious Fatty was making a joke, albeit one in poor taste.
An apology does not guard against defamation but usually helps lower the cost of any damages.
The family's lawyers have obviously told them about the strength of the case. i bet it was actually random lawyers who called them and informed them about the money they could make.
The family should have never commented to the press. they would have got more money. but now their son's defamation is being stirred up by them.
and yes they shoudl drop the law suit. but they wont and the footy show will settle with them.
I won't be surprised if the family has received some money from the Telegraph in exchange for doing these interview (aka chequebook journalism), but if the family in any way manage to obtain any monetary amount from either Ch9 or Fatty as a result of this, this is an absolute farce. 10 yrs ago, this case would've been thrown out of court immediately (if it went to trial) without fail.
We all know that there is no ethical grounds for pursuing with this case in the first case. I understand what you are trying to say Christopher, but I still can't see how you deduce all of this consituting to defamation. Are you trying to tell me that next time I'm at a party (although I don't drink) and I see someone acting and speaking like a drunkard, and I say they might be tipsy, they have the right to take legal action against me (if I didn't know they had any sort of disability which contributed to their behaviour)? I just don't buy into that.
What is infinitely many more times legitimate and newsworthy are those ppl who have been left thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket (and in some cases, may lose their house as they struggle to pay off their mortgage) as a result of Tim Johnston (the owner of Firepower). Some of you may know him as the former owner of the Sydney Kings, and his company use to sponsor the club, as well as Western Force and South Sydney. As a result of his negligence which led to the dissolution of the Kings from the NBL, it appears as though he's done a Christopher Skase but buzzing off to his multi-million dollar mansions around the world. All of those ppl who have been shrewdly ripped off by this thick-necked git of a person are more than entitled to compensation. The biggest of them would be Matt Gitteau (from the Waratahs). I too, would be very annoyed if I was legitimately entitled to $500,000 in sponsorship money, and wasn't paid a cent of it.
