Letter: Charity Trustees Can Draw Confidence From This Defamation Case Result

Published on: 3 Jul, 2019
Updated on: 3 Jul, 2019

From Chris Hogger

former Trustee of the Effingham Village Recreational Trust (EVRT)

In response to: Judge Awards Win to Effingham Charity in Defamation Case

As one of the defendants in this case, there are a few other things I would add. Firstly, it is absurd but unsurprising that Mr Nicholls should characterise his failure as due to the “technicality” of his not having served his claim correctly. Why he should be unable to post a few simple forms into a postbox in a timely manner is anyone’s guess, but his assertion is disingenuous.

As the judge states in his ruling, “the claim is doomed to failure on its own merits anyway”, going on to note that nothing defamatory had been sent by us to Mr Nicholls and that what had been sent had not been published by us. The judge also noted Mr Nicholls’ free admission in court that it was he himself who had shown the letter to others around the village, a fact that had also been known to us more than two years ago. So his “defamation” claim was simply ridiculous from the start and became only more so as time went on.

In building his claim Mr Nicholls was aided by several other parties all having their own peculiar agendas. One of these saw his role as bombarding the defendants with long rambling letters full of unfounded accusations and crudities laced with ill-educated pontifications about the law. Mr Nicholls unwisely paid heed to these other parties whilst steadfastly ignoring explanations from us as to why his claim could not possibly succeed. But he shut his mind to these and merely blundered on.

The EVRT charity had to defend against this claim, just as it had had to write (under legal advice) to Mr Nicholls the material of which he complained. The matter has taken not only time from our lives, but thousands of pounds out of the charity, money which Trustees, employees and, especially, volunteers had worked hard to bring in as income. We are pleased that, recognising that the defendants had been at no fault in any of this, the judge has seen fit to award full costs to us.

Charity trustees are obliged to respond to potentially damaging incidents on their premises, such as those that lay at the origin of this claim. Dealing with such things is part of the price of public and voluntary endeavour. However, the Trustees of EVRT should now draw confidence from the outcome of this case that they can exercise their responsibilities without fear of claims that are manifestly groundless.