- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United Kingdom
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Environment and Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
Are first impressions everything? According to a recent decision from the Sheriff Appeal Court, a first impression is a lasting impression for the ordinary social media user.
Tweets published by a trade union employee regarding wages of restaurant staff were considered defamatory due to their meaning on face value in the eyes of the ordinary Twitter user.
In 2023, The Real Living Wage Foundation increased its living wage. This meant that businesses across the UK could then no longer claim to hold the 'real living wage' accreditation without a significant jump in hourly rates.
In March that year, employees of popular Glasgow restaurant Brel were informed that their hourly rate would not be increasing in line with the real living wage. Instead, their wages would rise in line with the national living wage, a lower-than-expected increase.
Unite the Union represented employees of Brel and entered a dispute with Ashton Properties (Glasgow) Limited ("Ashton Properties"), owners of the business, arguing that their employees' pay should be increased in accordance with the real living wage – at the higher rate. An employee from Unite the Union took to X (formerly Twitter) to express their grievances on the matter.
The tweets stated that Ashton Properties had 'reduced' Brel employees' wages from the real living wage to the minimum wage whilst making reference to a boom in the company's profits.
Ashton Properties sought damages on the grounds that these tweets were defamatory.
Judgment at first instance and appeal
At first instance, the court found that the ordinary reasonable Twitter user would understand the tweets to mean that the wages of Brel employees were being reduced and, therefore, the tweets were defamatory.
In arriving at this conclusion, the court considered three key features of the tweets.
i) the ordinary natural meaning
of the word "reduced".
ii) the proximity of the word 'reduced' to
'wage' in the message as well as the absence of any wage
scale.
iii) the ordinary general knowledge of a reasonable social
media user.
Unite the Union appealed the decision on the grounds that the ordinary Twitter user would understand that the employees' wages were being reduced from one wage scale to another wage scale.
The question before the court upon appeal was: what would the words used in the Tweets convey to the ordinary reasonable reader?
The court considered the hypothetical reader to be a person who would read the publication and react to it in a way that reflected the context and circumstances in which it was made. It was noted that Twitter and Facebook alike are casual mediums. The reader was not considered to pause and reflect on the publication. Instead, the reaction to a post is impressionistic and fleeting.
The words 'reduced' and 'wages' were taken at face value. This was despite the potential for them to be interpreted differently had the reader a greater understanding of the policy changes to wages or had they taken time to analyse and consider the content of the tweet. It was considered that, to the ordinary reasonable reader, the Tweets implied the wages of Brel employees had been reduced, which in-turn was a false claim.
The Sheriff Appeal Court upheld the decision at first instance and agreed that the tweets were defamatory.
Where does this leave social media users?
This decision highlights that statements and publications on social media are taken at face value.
In a world where social media is no longer purely a personal platform, businesses and their representatives must take extra care that their posts and publications can stand as true and accurate when taken at face value.
To avoid disputes of this nature, businesses should consider the first impression given by publication to clients and followers, as well as to the general public. Publications may reach audiences that do not have the requisite or specialist knowledge to properly interpret the contents and context of a post. To reduce misinterpretation, consider the meaning of key words upon first impression.
On the flipside, if you consider defamatory claims have been made against yourself or your business, it is important to note the reform to Scottish legislation that came into force in 2022. Following these changes, claims of defamation may only be raised within one year of the date of publication. In practice, this means that you will not be able to raise a claim of defamation if one year has passed since the defamatory statement/publication. It is important to act fast if you consider claims of this nature have been made against you.
In summary, first impressions may not be everything but following this recent decision from the Sheriff Appeal Court, they definitely count.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
