Moderator, seems I overstepped the mark there, sorry about that, but's that's why I didn't mention any names. it still amazes me that they can sue for liable for saying something is true but I stand chastised.

Thanks Partypooper.

A newspaper doesn't publish sight unseen comments about businesses from the public etc. But our legal advice is the same defamation laws apply to us as to a newspaper.

We got stung last year and had to make a settlement of thousands of dollars. Yet what was published would not have made our business one dollar.

Management.

We all know it's hard to appologise, so it's good to be acknowleged for doing so. I wonder, a family friend (a solicitor) tells me that if whatever one says is preceeded with the words "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" this nullifies whatever one has said in the sense that it cannot be used in Court. Is this so ?? if it is surely we can all get together to protect "the forum" against any possible liable.
Anyway I sure hope that I wasn't involved in "that payout" as the thought that the **************s STILL made money out of us stinks to high heaven!!!
Psssst, no names mentioned!!

The "without prejudice" applies where there is a payment or apology for something , it neither confirms nor denies responsability .
This is done so that it cant be used as admission of guilt in a court of law if the other party accepts.
e.g. paying a speeding fine ,the points only start from the time one pays the fine , not the date of the offence , they see that as an admission of guilt.

__________________
Cheers.

Bhagwan, presuming you're right, then it covers us dosen't it???? i.e. we can appologise "IN CASE" we are wrong BUT we cannot be sued for Liable ??? correct????

Not possible Partypooper, otherwise the Law of the Jungle would apply. One would be free to make the most outlandish, innacurate, defamatory accusations.

Using another example, politicians have immunity from legal action being taken against them for what they say in Parliament. I believe the media is also permitted to accurately report what has been said in Parliament in the national interest.

However, it is quite common to hear a politician say to a member of the other side in a media debate or outside Parliament, "How about repeating your accusations here? Have the guts to say what you said in the House here."

Of course it is not repeated, because then legal action could be taken for defamation.