Yes, and it's very easy to destroy someone
This is because in UK law the burden of proof in defamation cases is on the defendant - the defendant has to prove they didn't defame, rather than the other way around.

The Simon Singh V the Chiropractic Association is a recent famous (ongoing) example of this.
( rofl harris, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 14:15, 1 reply)

What if the case is clearly ridiculous
as this one is? What would happen if you just ignored the legal threats and let them take you to court, wasting their own time and money? I suppose there's a risk you might lose, but honestly, what judge would rule in favour of these idiots?
( chart cat has an itch, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 14:46, closed)

"what judge would rule..."
Well, depends on how good their legal representation was, and in this case - on the Judge's understanding of the Internet.
( rofl harris, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 15:35, closed)

That's
the problem. The law is outdated and favours the rich - possible the reason libel laws was passed in the first place.

I had a similar thing. When they realised that my company could possibly afford to defend the action, they reissued and sued me personally - again, despite me not having said anything.

Also, if what has been said is the truth...this is no defence against defamation. If the truth could damage the person, then they still have grounding for a defamation case.
(dchurch bah, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 16:21, closed)