VIC Defamation against FairWork Commissioner
- Thread starter Jack_G
- Start date
-
- Tags
- defamation
- False statement: Applicant made it so that another employee was unable to access the computer.
- True statement (supported by evidence): Another employee had issues accessing some software on the computer.
False statement above can really hurt the reputation of the Applicant.
The difference between two statements is huge.
- Statement 1 - means that employee was unable to work.
- Statement 2 - means that he was able to work, but couldn't do something extra.
Contacted the decision maker (VCAT human rights) asking to change defamatory comments few days ago. No response yet.
Last edited:
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.
Defamation in relation to court/tribunal matters is very hard to win.
No, I don't think you have the right decision. Decision I'm thinking of is from VCAT. (can't change the Topic Title)
They did not respond when I explained that Reasons are false, misleading and defamatory.
I also pointed them to the correct evidence that they have ignored in the decision.
I asked to change the Reasons so that false, misleading and defamatory information is removed.
At stake is both a matter of public interest (correctness of information) and my reputation.
Judges and tribunal members are largely immune from these kinds of actions.
re: VCAT decisions, you can appeal the decision to the Vic Supreme Court if a mistake at law has occurred but it must be done within 28 days of the VCAT decision being announced.
re: VCAT decisions, you can appeal the decision to the Vic Supreme Court if a mistake at law has occurred but it must be done within 28 days of the VCAT decision being announced.
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?
The differentiation between false and true statement does not sound convincing. Could you imagine a jury making the same distinction from your false/more true statement that you made. The impact on your reputation would seem minimal from such a distinction that would get most people lost anyway. Seems likely that the judge may have made an error in emphasis without intent. To have taken such a statement personally would be seen as the risk that you took when you decided to attend the tribunal or court. You could have chosen to settle or not brought the case forward?
Understanding How Defamation Works in the Courtroom
Courtrooms are a good place to be insulted, but not a good place for pursuing a slander lawsuit. Learn who and what is protected to prevent a frivolous pursuit.
www.casamo.com
There was no effort to settle from the other side.
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.
Occam razor principle. To me it's obvious that the tribunal didn't want to make a big decision that will ruin the reputation of the big company. Facts ignored, witness statements ignored.
The fact that it's not the first time it has happened to me, I realise that this is just the way the legal system works.
I believe it's not possible to make such amount of mistakes accidentally, which means - it's an intentional misdirection. To me it's a serious maladministration, to others it just a legal system.
Yeah, I can appeal. But I'm losing trust in the legal system.
I was reading about qualified immunity and thought of this thread.
Police act like laws don't apply to them because of 'qualified immunity.' They're right.
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
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.
Police act like laws don't apply to them because of 'qualified immunity.' They're right.
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
At least now we know how the system works. Otherwise it was very frustrating. I thought it was personal, but it's not.
Soon all people will realise that reasons in any decision should be taken with a grain of salt.
Here's a story.
VCAT was pointed to the evidence it "misread".
VCAT was told that their published reasons are false and misleading.
Their response was: "reasons have now been published, they will not be corrected. "
Then, VCAT was asked these questions:
- Is VCAT Human Rights division happy for reasons to be false and misleading?
- Is VCAT Human Rights division implying that it's fair?
- Is VCAT Human Rights division happy (or considers it to be OK) for the public to be mislead by publishing false and misleading information?
Their response was: VCAT does not answer the sort of questions.
That doesn't sound like they follow their own service commitment:
We aim for service excellence by being: approachable, responsive, accessible, informal, timely, fair, impartial, consistent, professional and efficient.
Our commitment to you | VCAT
VCAT is a low cost, accessible, efficient and independent tribunal delivering high quality dispute resolution processes, including through alternative dispute resolution.
And there's nothing anyone can do about it. 😞
RIP justice.
Similar threads