🚀 go-pugleaf

<Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1187705378.039780.275170@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 Aug, 14:00, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0700, Arthur Brain
>>
>> <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > And subsequently I gather Demon's defence was amended - unless these
>> > guys are lyinghttp://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
>>
>> Wrong; these guys are not lying and that article says no more than that
>> Demon was given permission to file an amended defence, which is true.
>
> Had those amended pleadings been heard in court, could they have won
> or would those pleadings only have served to reduce the quantum of
> damages payable in the first action?

Much though I admire Laurence Godfrey, it is only fair to show people the 
judgment relating to the amendment, which is at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/240.html

I think the amendments would go only to the quantum of the damages award. 
But the judge also said "In my judgment there is material upon which the 
Defendants can assert that the action is not brought bona fide for purpose 
of vindicating the Plaintiff's reputation and recovering compensation for 
true injury to his reputation and feelings."  I'm not sure what he meant by 
that if he didn't mean that the material might defeat the claim itself.

However, the bottom line is that despite having been given leave to amend 
Demon and its lawyers evidently took the view that they were liable and that 
a substantial sum of damages would have to be paid to the claimant.

So what conclusion can we draw from the Godfrey v Demon litigation?  One 
conclusion that seems very obvious to me, is that it is best to post 
anonymously. Otherwise you may end up being libelled and be forced to sue to 
defend your reputation. Freedom of speech is a very good thing, and 
anonymous posting assists freedom of speech.