Defamation Compensation

General Damages

General damages are the court’s main and general award of compensation to the victim. The courts usually take the following factors into consideration is determining general damages, which include, but are not limited to:

Nature And Gravity Of Defamation

The tort of defamation is all about protecting reputations from harm. Where the reputation of the victim is seriously affected by very serious (but false) statements which point to the victim’s lack of integrity, or his commission of purported crimes, the courts will generally award more damages. Compare this to a situation where the statement in question only points to the victim’s purported negligence or carelessness – the award, in this case, has to be lower.

Position And Standing Of Parties

The bigger the reputation of the victim, the higher the awards will generally be. The courts have consistently awarded higher general damages in cases where the victim is a prominent businessman or government official. This is because unfounded statements on such individuals also impinge upon the reputation of the organisations or businesses which they serve.

However, the courts do not only consider the position and standing of the victim – they also consider carefully the position and standing of the alleged perpetrator. The courts have recognised that ordinary citizens writing in their own personal capacity (for example, in their own online blogs) who make defamatory statements, may be asked to pay out lower damages to the victims.

Mode And Extent Of Publication

Here, the courts consider the medium used to make the statement in question, and the reach of the defamatory material. Thus, a statement made on an online blog would be deemed to be less credible (and therefore less defamatory and less deserving of high general damages) than a newspaper article because of the differences in the medium used. When it comes to reaching, a private letter sent to 3 recipients with the defamatory statements would warrant a lower award of general damages compared to an online petition published and shared far and wide.

Conduct Of The Statement-Maker

Here, the courts will look at the conduct of the statement maker to decide whether a higher or lower award of general damages is suitable. Where the statement-maker acted out of pure malice, in the full knowledge that what he said was false, or blithely ignored all evidence contrary to the statements in question, the courts would tend towards awarding higher general damages. Also pertinent at this stage would be clear indications to the court that the statement-maker has no regard for the reputation of the victim or the falsity of his claims, for example when the alleged perpetrator refused to apologise to the victim or retract or correct his statements.

Aggravated Damages

Aggravated damages are awarded if the statement-maker acted in such a manner as to worsen the damage to the reputation of the victim. Circumstances that would attract the court’s award of aggravated damages include:

Absence Of Apology

Repetition Of Defamatory Remarks

Malicious And Reckless Conduct

Exemplary Damages

Another possible remedy, but admittedly rare, is exemplary damages. Exemplary damages may be awarded when the perpetrator:

had known or suspected that the statement was untrue but failed to ascertain the truth, or

had made the statement in expectation of profit (expecting that the potential material gain outweighed the potential liability for defamation).

When calculating exemplary damages, the courts also consider the statement-makers ability to pay the damages, his blameworthiness, and the amount of profit gained from making the defamatory statement.