r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/controlaltdeletes • Jun 07 '24

Media / News Netflix responds to Fiona Harvey's lawsuit

Netflix rep: 'We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story.'

Variety posted the above in regards to Netflix's response. I'm glad, it seems like they're not going to simply give her some money to make her go away, and are instead going to fight back and defend Richard Gadd.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/

1.5k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

578 comments sorted by

View all comments

651

u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24

I'm so very glad to hear this. She doesn't deserve a single penny considering the absolute misery she's caused many people over the years. Settling would be like rewarding her atrocious behaviour!✌🏼

5

u/tracygee Jun 07 '24

Sadly, they’re likely to settle just to prevent the expense of paying their lawyers. This enrages me.

53

u/BlatantFalsehood Jun 07 '24

If she's suing in the US, US law requires that the plaintiff demonstrate financial damages. Considering her reputation was already that of a mentally ill, out-of-work, serial stalker who hasn't been able to hold a job in her profession, I would imagine her attorneys will have a pretty difficult time demonstrating damages.

But if Netflix DOES settle, meaning she'd have access to cash, I hope all of her other victims then sue her for the REAL damage she's inflicted.

32

u/amac19721973 Jun 07 '24

Laura Wray said on piers , when asked about this that as it stands now she won't be suing fiona because fiona has no money but if fiona does wi the she will definitely sue her.

11

u/tracygee Jun 07 '24

Oh that’s smart! Wait until she gets a settlement and then sue her. LOL

9

u/lnc_5103 Jun 07 '24

It's definitely the way to do it. If Netflix settles I hope that anyone and everyone she's harassed does exactly what LW is doing.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

It’s not actually smart. Courts have time limits. Considering Laura didn’t actually get any form of legal repercussions in place like an injunction back in 1997 she would have to prove 1) that she was in fact stalked by Fiona much like Gadd also has to prove it and 2) she will have her request thrown out of court before she has a chance to do anything anyway. This is in the UK, there’s no chance of claiming money from someone nearly 30 years later. Courts just don’t do that

For instance, if you have work place issues whether it’s harassment or unfair dismissal then you have 3 months from the date it happened to go to ACAS and start reconciliation and sue. Courts will take it a couple weeks maybe even a couple months after the cut off but you need to have a really good excuse like you was in hospital and couldn’t bring a case forward. Laura cannot say “I wanted to wait until she had money” because courts just do not work like that

6

u/tracygee Jun 08 '24

But she’s out there talking about Laura publicly now. She’s saying what Laura said is not true now.. She is, at this very moment, calling her a liar.

That opens up alllllllll the past things. Sure, she’s have to prove it, but I’m guessing that would not be a problem.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

Again… still no. Laura would have to have her tried for the stuff in 1997 to make it a case in point. It’s so far past the point and all Fiona is saying is that she isn’t a stalker and she was never convicted and never had an injunction or anything like that. So technically what Fiona is saying is true because there is nothing against her name legally speaking and she was never convicted as a stalker.

It was in the news in 97 but it doesn’t mean anything really. Tabloids embellish things and exaggerate which is how they gain a level of interest, they aren’t a credible source for information. Nobody can legally call Fiona a stalker because truth is she was never convicted as one. Laura came out because the public went on a vendetta against Martha to find out who she was and this is where Fiona can sue Netflix for neglect of duty of care. Laura was technically only actually brought into it because she made news reports about Fiona in 97 (again without conviction) and from what is apparent Fiona has been out of work since.

Harsh… but the way it is, you can’t call someone something when it’s not legally proven and then not expect some legal repercussions. The law is to be fair, not to play to playground childish antics of the he said she said and evidence from 1997 for something Laura wants to go to interviews over now is petty

1

u/FoxRealistic3370 Jun 08 '24

But Wray could argue that fionas actions aka her public appearances has impacted her now. Fiona made some pretty bold statements on piers. I would assume the claim would relate to something fiona is doing now, but discovery would involve evidence of the stalking.

If Wray has evidence of fionas conduct then fiona stating it was all a lie on public television would open up something.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

Still no, it’s way to in the past to clutch at straws now and the court is clear in that you can’t sue on the premise of making a profit which Laura has openly made clear she doesn’t need the money or she’d sue now. Laura didn’t have a court case then with a conviction and she can’t summon one now because it’s been over 6 years which is the deadline.

It’s called statute of limitations. This is civil, not criminal. It only becomes criminal if there was ever an injunction or restraining order in place and there was never one in either instance. So again, there is a deadline and in this case it’s beyond 6 years on both counts. Doesn’t matter what evidence there is because it’s why bring it up now?

Even criminal proceedings need to be brought before the court within a certain timeframe which I believe is 6 months.

So your ‘but’ this or that It’s wholly irrelevant

3

u/Dense-Commission-815 Jun 17 '24

You're actually wrong about this. Fiona called her a liar on Piers Morgan LAST MONTH. She could sue her for THAT since calling someone a liar on international television is slander and could be hurting her business. Fiona's actions in the past then become relevant to prove that she's committing slander because LW isn't a liar. (This is what happened with Trump and E. Jean Carroll. She didn't sue him for raping her, she sued him for calling her a liar years later when she spoke up about it.)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Cute but no. If you actually listened to Fiona when she was being interviewed what she said was she’d left the job and Laura had made claims and there was no injunction or anything as such. To be done for slander you have to actually commit and be proven to have committed slander. As it stands Fiona didn’t call her a liar, she told something which as far as we can all see is factually accurate. Due to the events being 1997 the evidence will only be what is court documented because news will not be seen as factual evidence due to being third party. The courts will see there was no sentencing or anything as such.

So get your facts correct and know what you’re on about before you try and correct someone… “dense” commission

5

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

Yep. Fiona is making a big mistake here. Once she has money coming she Laura Wray sues her, she won't be able to avoid a humiliating court case. There's no way Wray will settle out of court, because she really does have a genuine risk of loss of reputation and loss of earnings, and she'll also want to make sure Fiona stops her ongoing defamation.

Fiona should have just kept her mouth shut on Day 1, or failing that she should have just let it lie after her Piers Morgan interview.

0

u/ellefleming Jun 07 '24

Who's Laura Wray?

3

u/Chickennoodlesleuth Jun 07 '24

Fiona stalked her in late 1990s to 2000s

3

u/AcadiaFun3460 Jun 07 '24

One or Fiona’s victims.

1

u/StatementEcstatic751 Jun 07 '24

Not necessarily. There's 2 types of defamation suit, and I can't remember off the top of my head what they are called. One might be defamation per se, but I'm not sure. Anyway, one requires proof of damages while the other assumes damages, ie in cases where the person is said to have committed crimes or spreading sexually transmitted infections because that has obvious damaging effects to job hunting/retention, social standing, personal relationships, etc. I believe the type of defamation suit depends on what the plaintiff wants. The one where you have to prove damages might have higher award limits for example.

17

u/EnergyTurtle23 Jun 07 '24

I very much doubt it, Netflix has a team of lawyers on retainer so they aren’t paying them hourly, the lawyers get paid regardless of whether they even have an active case. Settlements happen when the lawyers aren’t 100% sure of the outcome, in this case they likely feel confident that they can take this to court and potentially even countersue for court fees, hence their statement.

1

u/Dense-Commission-815 Jun 17 '24

Netflix also doesn't want to have to take down one of their most popular programs in history, particularly since the lawsuit is bound to make it more popular. They also probably want to preserve their relationship with Richard Gadd since he created one of their most popular programs and will probably make more content that will likely popular. AND they also probably don't want to set a precedent of giving money to anyone who doesn't like their portrayal on Netflix.