No, I don't think you have the right decision. Decision I'm thinking of is from VCAT. (can't change the Topic Title)Based on your other posts, and assuming I have the correct decision, then I can't see defamation getting up. Keep in mind I only have limited information and do not have all the facts.
Defamation in relation to court/tribunal matters is very hard to win.
I thought most actions and statements in court are largely immune from defamation and have a certain level of privilege. Court proceedings are structured and not arbitrary. Statements are part of the legal workflow and not casual nor stemming from personal opinion I would have thought. It is not like the judge chose to be there, it would be very difficult to prove that the judge had libelous or slanderous intent, when the judge has no relationship with you prior?Judges and tribunal members are largely immune from these kinds of actions.
There was no effort to settle from the other side.You could have chosen to settle or not brought the case forward?
Employee can work or Employee cannot work. Does it sound more convincing now? Difference is huge. Consequences from restricting someone from working are very serious.The differentiation between false and true statement does not sound convincing.
It's sad. And nothing anyone can do about it. I think this policeman might be fired, that's all.I was reading about qualified immunity and thought of this thread.
There's a legal obstacle that's nearly impossible to overcome when police officers and government officials violate our constitutional and civil rights.www.usatoday.com