The message appeared on the paper's on-line open forum for up to three weeks until the 57-year-old former MP for Hamilton South brought it to the attention of Sunday Herald editor Andrew Jaspan. It was immediately removed, and the forum taken off-line.
Lord Robertson sued the Sunday Herald for damages of £200,000 in July 2003, arguing that the comments were "false and calumnious" and could harm his chances of securing work when he stepped down from his NATO post at the end of last year.
The case has now settled for a reported £25,000 and an apology.
Lord Robertson's solicitor, Campbell Deane, told the Scotsman newspaper:
"The case was settled out of court and will not set a legal precedent. But it will send out a clear message to those who don't have full control of what appears on their web sites: they cannot hide from their legal responsibilities."
"The Sunday Herald made an ill-judged mistake in allowing a scurrilous untruth to be published, and while I deeply regret that I was forced to seek legal redress, I am glad that the paper's management has accepted their misjudgement through settling this action," said Lord Robertson, according to the Scotsman.
In an article, setting out its side of the story, the Sunday Herald confirmed that there had only been 37 'hits' on that part of the web site, and that while it had been willing to defend the action, Lord Robertson had accepted a 'tender' offer of £25,000. A tender is a tactical offer sometimes made by defendants in legal actions in order to limit the legal costs they might face.
The suit, if it had gone to trial, would have been the first time that the question of a web site owner's liability for defamatory statements posted anonymously on its web site had been heard in Scotland.
In general, there is no liability for such postings, so long as the web site owner did not make the statements itself, was not aware that the defamatory statements had been posted onto the site (i.e. was not monitoring the site), and removed them immediately when the statements were brought to its attention.
The person who made the statements, if ever identified, will still be liable for defamation.
According to John MacKenzie, an IT litigation partner with Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.com:
"It would appear that Lord Robertson and his legal advisers are trying to make the best of the compromise struck. The courts around the world have been fairly consistent in allowing web operators to escape liability if they did not monitor postings. If the case had continued then it is not at all clear that he would have been successful."