Liverpool FC and Brian Pead – kick off at the High Court

Brian Pead has issued a claim against Liverpool Football Club for Defamation.

Mr Pead has written the definitive history of Liverpool Football Club from 1892.

The claim reads:

1. Between 1 November 2012 and 7 January 2013, Liverpool Football Club was negligent by failing to restrict the right to freedom of expression by users of its website and by allowing defamatory statements to be made about Mr Brian Pead, an author of books on the entire history of Liverpool FC and a supporter of Liverpool FC for 50 years.

2. A particular defamatory statement was entitled “Convicted Sex offender Brian Pead associating himself with Hillsborough Families”.

3. Brian Pead is not, nor has ever been, a sex offender.

4. Brian Pead is not a convicted sex offender.

5. The Claimant is the author of five books on the entire history of Liverpool FC and to find that the club he has supported for more than 50 years and written about since 1986 should allow such defamatory remarks to be made about him on the world wide web caused him significant distress and alarm and substantial harm to his reputation.

6. The extremely serious action of posting such comments on its website was also negligent on behalf of Liverpool FC.

7. The Claimant attended the Hillsborough Football Disaster on 15 April 1989 and had, for the past 23 years, borne witness to the police corruption that followed that disaster, some of which he made reference to in the book “from Hillsborough to Lambeth”.

8. The Claimant has been significantly injured because of the fact that Liverpool FC, more than any other team in the Premier League or, perhaps, the world, should be aware of the sensitivities around police and governmental corruption and the cover-up of such corruption.

9. Liverpool Football Club has defamed the Claimant to the world by posting defamatory remarks about him on the World Wide Web – none of which is true in any event and can be easily shown to be untrue.

10. On 23 January 2013, a Pre-Action Protocol letter was sent via DHL carriers to the Defendant.

11. This Pre-Action Protocol letter included suggestions for Remedy and for Mediation.

12. It also provided a deadline for response of 7 February 2013.

13. By 17 February 2013, no response whatsoever has been received from the Defendant, despite the Defendant being provided with full contact details of the Claimant, including a PO Box address, a mobile telephone number and an email address.

In: Latest news

Still quiet

Leave a Response