JD wrote:
swannee wrote:
BTW Thomson does know the specifics.
Fortunately it is the specifics that matter and without them we don't have a debate. It is pointless debating anything other than the facts. I dare say there are many subscribers to this site and other sites, that could produce vitriolic and defamatory posts against any number of people. What I am interested in are the specific allegations attributed to the parties concerned and where they were published and for how long?
Regards
JD
The fact is, this is not a personal defamation claim by Colky and Co. They are claiming that the company has been defamed as a result of the comments made about its office bearers on TDO. The company has then assumed the hurt and is now in the process of paying all the legal costs.
The interim interdict was only supposed to be a short term gagging order to prevent us damaging their chances of being re-elected at the next AGM.
QC Kinroy, offered us both a deal to accept the gagging order and CRT, would accept the costs with the case being pulled a few months down the line.
We pushed them in court to take this to a full proof, knowing how financially damaging it would be as a result.
Jim took the deal at the first hearing but I refused the deal at the second hearing.
At the last hearing (the fourth) QC Kinroy wanted us to lodge defences but we put in a motion to sist, quoting article 6 of the ECHR.
The sist was granted in our favour.
