In the third and final part of our series on defamation claims in an HR context, we look at a recent Supreme Court judgment that shines a light on the often difficult issue of the harm caused – and the damages that may awarded – in defamation and malicious falsehood claims.

Almost all HR Managers will be familiar with the muttered threats of defamation claims which accompany any formal allegation of harassment, bullying, misconduct or poor performance on the part of another employee. Line managers in particular are prone to this, fearful that the employee’s grievance against them may lessen their standing either in the eyes of their employer or externally. There is in fairness a great deal more justification for such concerns than there used to be. The ease with which allegations may be aired via social media and the increasing difficulty which individuals and businesses seem to have in distinguishing between allegation and fact undoubtedly mean that lasting reputational harm can be caused more easily than used to be the case. Against that, of course, most workplace grievances and spats are actually a great deal less interesting than the parties to them believe, and so while the making of some allegation at work might damage the person accused, that is far from necessarily the case. Under those circumstances, what advice should HR be giving to employees who consider themselves defamed in such a process?

Ideally, none. Defamation is a complex area and the costs...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitwFBVV95cUxQXzN1emRIX3ktYTdJNENLeGJu...