Settlement Agreement Defamation Case

The Wagners argued that they were entitled to damages because the defendants had not reasonably failed to make an offer of settlement (Part One). The defendants had made several counter-offers to the comparative proposals of the Wagners, of which the Wagners were not satisfied. The first counter-offer contained an amount of $25,000 more than Wagner had originally proposed, but was deemed inappropriate because it did not contain an apology. The defendants` subsequent counter-offers are unreasonable because, although they included an apology, the conditions of apology do not contain any element of justification – because they do not contain an expression of regret or full recognition of the falsity. These cases also illustrate the nature of the conduct and other relevant issues that the Tribunal will consider when deciding on the type of cost order to be adopted under Section 40, although it is important to remember that each case will focus on its facts. The Court then considered whether it was appropriate, at its general discretion, to issue compensation orders in favour of the Wagners. In support of their case, the Wagners relied on the court`s earlier finding that Mr. Jones was motivated by a desire to damage the Wagners` reputation and was deliberately blind to the truth or falsity of what Jones had disseminated.5 The Court held, however, that the purpose of the compensation costs was not to sanction a party. Nevertheless, the Court found that, in this case, the costs of compensation were justified by the following reasons: in the midst of anticipating the judgment in defamation proceedings, the issue of costs is little public. However, the issue of costs should not be overlooked – as is still under discussion, the behaviour of a party before and during the procedure can influence the nature of fee orders and therefore the amount of costs they incur.

In Benhayon, Ms. Rockett had posted blogs and tweets about Mr. Benhayon, a « spiritual healer. » Mr Benhayon brought defamation proceedings against Ms Rockett. The result was described as a « major defeat » for Mr. Benhayon and a « global victory » for Ms. Rockett7, who was able to successfully defend the case that was brought against her. As a subject party, the court convicted Mr.