@Skedaddle
That is an interesting story. I had no idea there were similar cases that have been won. Thanks for sharing that. :)
This case could be landmark - human rights act is up in two sections.
Here is the Watchtower's response to that, from the other thread.
Paragraph 22 of the Amended Particulars of Claim is denied.
The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. In any event, even if the Claimant could establish that the words complained of constituted actionable slander and were not spoken on an occasion protected by qualified privilege, which is denied, given the context in which the words complained of were spoken,
the words spoken could not and did not interfere with the Claimant’s right to respect for his private and family life.
53.Paragraph 26 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied.
The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. Furthermore, the Claimant’s claim under Article 9 appears to arise in relation to his disfellowshipping which is not the subject of this claim and is in any event non-justiciable before the secular court.
The Defendants aver that Article 9 in conjunction with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to determine the membership of a religious community as held by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania (no. 2330/09, 136, 137, 165, 9 July 2013).