Friday, October 13, 2006

Eli was right before he was wrong....

Dan Johnson's Statement of Defense to Tim Ball's (we all did enjoy a good game of Tim Ball, didn't we) Statement of Clam has appeared on deSmogBlog. Everyone will have a grand old time playing Holiday Inn Express Lawyer, but as the original, I would like to point to

15. In the further alternative, and in answer to the whole of the Statement of Claim, says that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of section 13 the Defamation Act R.S.A. 2000, c. D-6. The defendant Johnson was not given notice in writing of the plaintiff's intention to bring an action against the defendant Johnson. If the defendant Johnson receive such a notice (which is not admitted but denied) it was not served in the same manner as a statement of claim.
Now, as you probably do not want to remember, when this little SLAPP de fe started, Eli pointed out that there was a time limit on defamation suits against newspapers, and that it appeared that the clock had run before the suit was settled. The issue rested on whether proper notice had been given. As he recalls (and more in a moment why you can't find the post on this site any more) he quoted from the act

RSA 1980 cD‑6 s12

Notice of intention to bring action

(1) The defamatory matter has come to the plaintiff’s notice or knowledge, given to the defendant, in the case of a daily newspaper, 7, and in the case of any other newspaper or when the defamatory matter was broadcast, 14 days’ notice in writing of the plaintiff’s intention to bring an action, specifying the defamatory matter complained of.

(2) The notice shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim.

and also posted a comment over at deSmogBlog asking if they knew if proper notice had been given. Richard Littlemore responded
... i.e. the pro forma threatening letter, was sent to both parties - in response to which the Herald wrote the clarification crediting Ball with 50+ "publications."
at which point Eli sent back his suitably framed law degree that he had polished up to show to Mother Rabett.
UPDATE2: Over at DeSmogBlog Richard Littlemore states that

... we have it on good authority that notice was served well within the allowable time limit.

And indeed he did.

As they say, nevermind. Gotta stop going to the Holiday Inn. In the interest of keeping things clear I am taking this post down.
Ask not for whom the bunny qvells.

No comments: