The person who prepared and distributed the document can have plausible defences to an action in the tort of defamation, (libel as it involves a written document, and is regarded as permanent).
Similarly, the company and it's noteworthy director may not have an action if the document is prepared primarily based on truth.
Voice, I fear my leglish is a bit rusty. Can you or anyone else suitably qualified, in 100 words or less, outline "The Definition of Defamation In The Laws Eyes for Dummies."
...there ALWAYS avenues of claiming re-dress if you are wronged, or indiscretions are being committed against others (employer/employee). This act isn't one of them.
Agree and let it be clear to all that my post does not suggest it is. Rather, the leaflet author has placed in the public sector material suggesting that he/she was disillusioned with career and suffering a sense of hopelessness that he/she attribute to time spent under HA. (This is not to imply the author was 18
)
