Today's star newspaper 18/04/2008- SWFC taking fan to court

[SpeedwayDan 10]

It is a very long story but my understanding of it is that "Grandad" offered to apologise and thought that was the end of the matter. Months later he received the news that Wednesday were still going to sue him. He then had to organise someone to defend him. He then enrolled the services of solicitors on a no win no fee basis. Wednesday then offered to drop all charges but by then "Grandad" had solicitors bill of €50,000 which he obviously can't afford to pay. The case has to go to court so that if he wins the bill can be paid.

 

If anybody knows different then I stand corrected if this is not the case.

 

Not true, well i don't think so anyway, I'm pretty sure if the case was dropped then swfc/K W would have to pay Grandads legal costs

[darra 10]

Shows how skint the Owls are if they are demanding damages from a supporter of the club. Kevan Walker sounds like a right muppet and his surname well surely there should be an n where the letter l is.

 

careful my friend that could result in a summons from said Mr walker. No i'm not joking in some respects that is on a par or maybe worse than what Nigel Short said.

[darra 10]

I'm afraiid the 'allegedly' defence doesn't work....

 

Libel is libel is libel.

 

The chap involved was given an opportunity to apologise - he apparently chose not to do so. The current situation is a direct consequence of his behaviour and as such he needs to deal with it.

 

bit of research needed mate.

[JoeP 11]

bit of research needed mate.

 

I've a fair amount of knowledge about libel law from trying to avoid problems with it - when I was Admin on here it was always an issue. As for the nature of this case - I can only go by what's been published.

 

See my later comment about the need for an apology to be agreed in form and content to be regarded as valid in libel. If the accused didn't do this, then the lawyers for the person allegedly defamed could claim that the apology was not forthcoming.

 

If the case is now going to court it really starts getting messy...prior to court (and even during a court case) it's often possible for agreements to be come to that meet the needs and wishes of all involved, and maybe that will happen here.

 

If the accused DID give an apology, and the court in the case agrees, then he's nothing to worry about, but it has to be an apology that the court acknowldges as being appropriate to the nature of the alleged libel.

[Vaughan 10]

Apparently Kevan Walker feels 'very upset and distressed' about the comments made by Grandad so he wants to fleece this old fella for about £4000 if I remember correctly......just for something he posted on an internet forum.

 

Wish I could be upset with someone to the tune of 4 grand. Pathetic.

 

They want £50k

 

Nigel offered to apologise and pay a sum of £2000 2 years ago (before a single penny in costs had been accrued) on the basis that the pre-written apology had the word defamatory changed (I cannot recall what to)

 

The club decided not to accept this apology and instead waited until the very last day they legally could to issue legal proceedings against him. 1 full year they sat on this seriously damaging comment. Then they decided it was sooo bad they must proceed with legal action.

 

Nigel recently declined an offer from the club to bring a halt to proceedings as it would have resulted in him having to pay legal costs that he cannot afford, brought about by the clubs insistence on taking this forward.

 

He may as well be bankrupted in the High court if a jury decides against him, than allow Kaven Walker and the remaining directors to weedle their way out of this.

 

Its ironic that the comments Nigel made alleged incompetence at the club, when this, the biggest fiasco of them all, could land the club with legal bills in excess of £400k and send the club into administration.

[Farmboy 10]

They want £50k

 

Nigel offered to apologise and pay a sum of £2000 2 years ago (before a single penny in costs had been accrued) on the basis that the pre-written apology had the word defamatory changed (I cannot recall what to)

 

The club decided not to accept this apology and instead waited until the very last day they legally could to issue legal proceedings against him. 1 full year they sat on this seriously damaging comment. Then they decided it was sooo bad they must proceed with legal action.

 

Nigel recently declined an offer from the club to bring a halt to proceedings as it would have resulted in him having to pay legal costs that he cannot afford, brought about by the clubs insistence on taking this forward.

 

He may as well be bankrupted in the High court if a jury decides against him, than allow Kaven Walker and the remaining directors to weedle their way out of this.

 

Its ironic that the comments Nigel made alleged incompetence at the club, when this, the biggest fiasco of them all, could land the club with legal bills in excess of £400k and send the club into administration.

 

Very ironic.....and £50k? The poor bugger.

[darra 10]

I've a fair amount of knowledge about libel law from trying to avoid problems with it - when I was Admin on here it was always an issue. As for the nature of this case - I can only go by what's been published.

 

See my later comment about the need for an apology to be agreed in form and content to be regarded as valid in libel. If the accused didn't do this, then the lawyers for the person allegedly defamed could claim that the apology was not forthcoming.

 

If the case is now going to court it really starts getting messy...prior to court (and even during a court case) it's often possible for agreements to be come to that meet the needs and wishes of all involved, and maybe that will happen here.

 

If the accused DID give an apology, and the court in the case agrees, then he's nothing to worry about, but it has to be an apology that the court acknowldges as being appropriate to the nature of the alleged libel.

My comment was aimed at this

 

The chap involved was given an opportunity to apologise - he apparently chose not to do so.

 

I see from a later post that the reality has been explained.

[Heyesey 11]

I see from a later post that the reality has been explained.

 

Yes - that being that he didn't give the required apology, as Joe said in the first place.

[Vaughan 10]

Yes - that being that he didn't give the required apology, as Joe said in the first place.

 

He offered to apologise.

 

He heard no more form the club for 52 weeks. Nothing for a year. Defamation statute is a year. The club waited until the very last day before they exercised this process.

 

The persons whose repuatations had been so tarnished, they were so eager to restore their good name that they held off for a full year before doing anything, whilst an offer of an apology sat there.

 

Some would say this was vindictive and spiteful and designed to cause the most anxiety to Nigel Short, but that might hurt the feelings of some people at the club.

[Ned Ludd 10]

In the years that Wednesday have been spending money on players who have rarely been fit to play and other players who didn't seem remotely interested in playing and 'letting go' players who actually wanted to play (For other clubs to re-sell at a nice profit), sacking managers willy nilly and thinking it legitimate to sue a fan suffering with cancer for making the sort of comments that thousands of football fans probably make every season............... the Blades have sorted their finances, built up a very good squad, have most of their fans onside (who aren't expected to pay as much for a superior product)

The only major c**k-up at the Lane in recent years was not letting Warnock stay and appointing Robbo.That error has now been sorted with Blackwell coming in

There could be a lesson to be learnt in looking acrooss the city

[mikey10 10]

pass the tissue darlin:rolleyes:

[spangler 10]

I don't like bullies.

 

When a big (rich) person goes after a little (hard up/ill) person and uses the law to do it, no matter how 'right' they are in law, it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth of all those who hear about it.

 

How many more people have heard about this alleged libel since this action was brought? How many would have paid attention to it or even believed it if it had been left to lie where it was?

 

How much lower is your opinion of the person taking the action now than it was before the action was taken?

 

This is not a matter of law. It is one of common, moral, dignified decency.