Good old Coutts

[Roy Bloom]

Again you ignore statute and use google to inform. Unfortunately, it looks like you’ve found another US example, though you may be misquoting Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309. The defamation act limits common law qualified privilege - your example does not align. A customer is not an employee, a risk review board does not have a statutory duty beyond those already discussed to research the political views of a customer. The report does not limit itself to research. It goes much further.

You also ignore the bbc briefing which cost the briefer her job and caused the bbc to apologise. Noting also that Coutts issued an apology too, so I’m not sure coutts dispute Farage’s version anymore given the total climb down.

The criteria applies between an employee and a review committee of the same organisation.
"... a privileged occasion is ... an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential."
The employee had a legal and moral duty to inform the review committee.
It was Farage who further communicated the report to the public. Until then it was private within the confines of Coutts.

The BBC briefing was true, Farage account was threatened with closure because of the funds.
The person who resigned accepted that she should not have commented at all. She was providing the genuine reason for the closure of the account, which was true and could not be considered libel.

 

[motorbiking]

According to the bbc it was misleading and inaccurate. Hence they apologised.

Do you think they got it wrong?

Your source of defamation law needs to start with the defamation act. The so called Reynolds defence has gone.

 

[Roy Bloom]

According to the bbc it was misleading and inaccurate. Hence they apologised.

Do you think they got it wrong?

Your source of defamation law needs to start with the defamation act. The so called Reynolds defence has gone.

The Reynolds defence refers to publishing in the public interest. It does not refer to qualified privilege.

"This section creates a new defence to an action for defamation of publication on a matter of public interest. It is based on the existing common law defence established in Reynolds v Times Newspapers(8) and is intended to reflect the principles established in that case and in subsequent case law. Subsection (1) provides for the defence to be available in circumstances where the defendant can show that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest and that he reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest."

Defamation Act 2013 - Explanatory Notes

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[motorbiking]

It doesn’t help you. Read section 7

 

[JohnD]

According to the bbc it was misleading and inaccurate.

According to motorbiking it was defamatory.

Or was it?

 

[motorbiking]

I suspect the bbc had a similar worry. Hence the apology

 

[transam]

Imo this entire thread has got lost in translation

And some basically simplistic caper

has morphed into some over complicated (?) baloney imo

 

[denso13]

has morphed into some over complicated (?) baloney imo

Yes, good old Nige would be proud.

 

[noseall]

Yes, good old Nige would be proud.

 

[fillyboy]

 

[JohnD]

According to motorbiking it was defamatory.

Or was it?

He won't say.

 

[noseall]

I suspect the bbc had a similar worry. Hence the apology

They apologised for slack reporting, i.e. they initially said it was because forrige was too poor. Turns out they fugged him off because he's Trump horn-smoking, fascist Brexer scum. The Beeb were too quick to put out half the story is all. News outlets apologise frequently.

I saw no lies. Did you?

 

[Mottie]

He won't say.

Bit like you when you were asked numerous times if you lived in Greenock where your location was given when you made your hundred trips a year to London claim to visit friends and family. Best you could say months later was:

I do not currently live or work in Greenock.

I do not currently need to visit East London every week.

Strange that you now don’t like it when someone won’t answer your question.

 

[motorbiking]

Pretty sure I've answered the question, probably about a dozen times now. But for the record (again) I think NF has a pretty good case for damages against the bank, based on breach of contract, breach of data protection law, possible (as its now been remedied) breach of payment account Law... and finally defamation, primarily due to the inaccurate and misleading statement issued by the BBC based on a false brief from a senior insider of the bank. I've said before the dodgy dossier is the gravy for the meet. However, having read it. It goes way beyond any analysis necessary for a lawful assessment and is quite clearly an essay which might be better titled "40 pages on why I hate Nigel Farage".

NF was de-banked primarily due to his views. He kicked off and briefed the press. A senior officer of the bank gave the BBC inaccurate and misleading information in order to defend their position and make NF look like an idiot. It turned out that the bank forgot about NF's ability to pull a Subject access request and this showed the bank to be big fat fibbers. So..

beefing the press with misleading and inaccurate information about an individual which is likely to damage their reputation and cause them damages - yep that's likely to be defamation.

 

[gant]

It goes way beyond any analysis necessary for a lawful assessment and is quite clearly an essay which might be better titled "40 pages on why I hate Nigel Farage".

Captured in a nutshell.
You can see it on here how the hate undermines their judgement.
As I said before this has brought those who voted remain or leave together in saying the bank behaved badly.