Statement Read in Open Court Re: Underhill and Watson

A statement has been read in open court Queens Bench Division High Court London which brings the libel action brought by Steve Underhill former chairman of 6024 Preservation Society against Tim Watson editor of the Kings Messenger the in house magazine to an end.

This is a lengthy document which has been provided to several magazines for publication and as part of the agreed settlement will be published in its entirety in the next edition of the Kings Messenger. Several condensed paragraphs of statement below:

At all relevant times Mr Underhill was also employed as a boiler smith and fitter at Tyseley Locomotive Works, which restores and maintains steam and other locomotives and rolling stock; and Mr Underhill thus carried out very many hours of work on the locomotive in his capacity as a Tyseley employee, in addition to the work which he carried out on a voluntary basis.

For Mr Underhill's work on the locomotive as a Tyseley employee, the Society was invoiced and Mr Underhill was paid by Tyseley. The practice was that Mr Underhill would log his Tyseley work on a timesheet, Tyseley would pay Mr Underhill, and then invoice the Society every month in respect of Mr Underhill's time; and the invoices would be checked by Mr Underhill as Society Chairman and then passed for payment by the Society's Treasurer, Mr Corser.

It was not possible for Mr Underhill to work directly for the Society, as its Rules prohibited it for making direct payments to officers as this may lead to a conflict of interest. To avoid this it was agreed in December 2002 that Tyseley could charge overtime rates when Mr Underhill worked on evening and Saturday on contracted work involving the locomotive, and subsequently it was agreed from time to time between Tyseley and the society's treasurer, Mr Corser that Mr Underhill could carry out work on the locomotive away from Tyseley on a contractual basis, for which Tyseley generously charged the society only standard rates, and when he had completer the usual overtime period Mr Underhill ofter continued work on a voluntary basis.

At a meeting of the Society's management board on the 3rd October the other members of the board confronted Mr Underhil with allegations that he had logged to Tyseley and had been paid for, work which he should of carried out for the society in a voluntary basis; this left him with no alternative but to resign immediately. Mr Underhill was given no warning of these allegations and was not given a proper opportunity to respond to them. Subsequently the society published two press statements and two circular letters to members which were highly critical of Mr Underhill but all of which were wholly one sided and gave Mr Underhill no opportunity to answer the criticisms made of him.

In due course there appeared in the Autumn 2007 edition of the society's magazine Kings Messenger and editorial written by the editor, Mr Watson which effectively accused Mr Underhill of dishonestly enriching himself at the society's expense, thereby damaging the locomotive, disgracing the society and have a massively detrimental effect on every members interests. Copies of the Editorial were published to over 400 society members and also a small number of non members. In none of these publications was any attempt made to put Mr Underhill's side of the story or to give him a chance to respond to the very serious allegations made against him.

These devastating and very serious allegations against Mr Underhill's honesty and integrity gaverise to this fiercely contested libel action in which, as well as suing Mr Watson, Mr Underhill also sued Mr Corser, who he believed had shared in responsibility for the publication of the Editorial. In response Mr Watson and Mr Corser not only pleaded a defence of privilege but also alleged that the allegation that Mr Underhill had behaved dishonestly was not only fair comment but was true. In reply Mr Underhill set out in great detail the reasons why he had not acted dishonestly or otherwise improperly, and he also contested that the words of which he complained were published maliciously.

A judgement on the 27th May the court ruled that Mr Corser had not taken part in the publication of the editorial, but the publication of the editorial by Mr Watson to non members of the society had not been privileged.

In the aftermath of these and other rulings Mr Watson, whilst stressing that he honestly believed at the time that the allegations he made against Mr Underhill were true, he has agreed to withdraw the defences of justification and fair comment and to pay Mr Underhill damages and costs.

In consequence Mr Underhill feels that his honesty and integrity have finally and completely been vindicated and he has therefore agreed to withdraw these proceedings.

 

I know nothing of what happened re the above post, and make no comment on it whatsoever.

What I will say that there are times when comments made by subscribers to Nat Pres threads are bordering on or actually could be actionable by the person/s etc they are directed against. The Mods act quickly, but cannot be expected to read every single one of such comments before any damage is done.

Which means it is always better to keep something of the things that we would like to say, to ourselves. And with anything contentious, to read the post a good few times and think about the wider consequences before pressing that SUBMIT button.

 

Sorry did not mean to offend that was not the intention. Many people read your forum which genuinely makes people aware of situations within the preservations network. This statement has been read in open court and released by the solicitors involved.

 

I don't think Bryan was having a go at you, but was reminding the forum members in general of our responsibilities.

I was interested to read the statement now it's in the public domain.

 

I most certainly was not having a go at the poster of that initial posting! I just thought it a good opportunity to remind others here of our general responsibilities as B1 mentioned. I did have to alert Mods to a post some weeks back that I considered could have been actionable. And from time to time I do see some here that I feel are running close to the line. Won't do the poster or Nat Pres any good if someone decides to take action in response. We live in a litigous society now.

 

Gosh - I do hope this was not the statement read out in open court: "work which he should of [sic] carried out ..." eeek!

 

All that having been said - and especially after a very interesting dinner tonight - there are, on occasion things which must be brought out into the open, or described for what they are - honestly, justifiably, and without fear or favour.

For evil to flourish all that is required is for good men to stay silent

 

It may well be the case that facts need to be aired but posters need to be very very very careful about both the words and the wording used. The lawyers work on the meaning of words and if one is used in the wrong context then - lawyers are busy. A simple case in point; for steam traction the word "engine" is interchangeable with "locomotive" and refers to the complete entity but in diesel traction they are 2 seperate items as the locomotive is the complete entity which consists of an engine ( sometimes referred to as the prime mover ) to generate power and a transmission system to direct that power to the wheels. By default many use "engine" or "locomotive" to describe the whole entity of a diesel locomotive - and enthusiasts consider the context to understand which definition is meant.
Once something is written, however, it is up to the reader to define both context and meaning even although the writer intended a different context and meaning - hence the risk of misunderstanding and confusion.

There are many personal comments made on threads which the subjects laugh off but could - if so minded - interpret in such a way as to engender a right to sue for defamation of character.

Laugh if you will but the Diesel & Electric Group can testify as to the problems it dealt with in the 1980s when it faced about 30 court cases by someone happy to go to law to correct a slight on his character; as I recall the litigant won about half the cases but the Group used time and effort to defend itself that it would rather have seen spent on the restoration of its locomotive fleet.

 

Well said Fred.

The Internet is not immune from the lawyers. Although last time I checked there was still a debate about whether it is libel or slander when such comments are posted online.

Re that second type of locomotive you mention. I find that "box" covers it more than adequately!

Hmmm... I presume that as the inventor is no longer with us I am reasonably safe in saying that...........