Bevan Brittan advising on first local authority defamation claim
One of the country’s smallest local authorities could be the first to bring defamation proceedings under the Localism Act 2011.
Peter Keith-Lucas
Rutland County Council has instructed Bevan Brittan partner Peter Keith Lucas to advise it on potential action against three independent councillors - Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright - who are collectively known as the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party (RACP). They deny the claims.
The Bevan Brittan report commissioned by the council alleges that several statements by the RACP could be deemed defamatory.
Should the council decide to go ahead with the action at a meeting tomorrow night it will be the first time such a case has been brought since the abolition of the Standards Board for England last year.
Bevan Brittan contends that the Localism Act provides the framework to bring such an action. In the report it states: “Some 20 years ago the Court of Appeal held that a local authority is not entitled to bring a defamation claim in its own name in connection with statements that damage the reputation of the authority as a whole […].”
It continues that this position has been reversed by the 2011 Act, which permits a local authority to do anything that an individual can do, including bringing defamation proceedings.
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 8-Jan-2013 3:39 pm
The Derbyshire principle was established by reference to Article 10 of the European Convention, concluding that there was no pressing social need for a local authority to be able to bring a claim for defamation. A declaration of incompatibility seems to be the likely outcome of these proceedings.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mutton Jeff | 9-Jan-2013 5:13 am
Good Lord. The prospect that a political entity could sue individuals for raising criticisms of it is like something out of 1984. Government entities have no right to a reputation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Jan-2013 9:46 am
I'm not a lawyer, but if these e-mails are defamatory and/or inappropriately expensive, I'd have thought that a referral to either the authority's own Standards Committee or the First-Tier Tribunal would be the correct course of action.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nick Wainwright | 24-Jan-2013 3:04 pm
I am one of the 3 Councillors
Despite the comments made in committee in the House of Lords, the Council have today stated that they are proceeding with lawyers to prepare an injunction against us. They have also subjected the three of us to a Single Point of Contact who is the Chief Executive who is claiming that we are harassing her by asking questions! Are they able to do this? It is a very good way of preventing us from airing our concerns as was the suspension of Procedure Rules which allowed us from raising point of interest during the meeting of the 11th January in order to refute the allegations made against us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment