IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) JOHN G. M. COMPTON PATRICK JOSEPH. 1996: March 27 May 14 JUDGMENT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) JOHN G. M. COMPTON PATRICK JOSEPH. 1996: March 27 May 14 JUDGMENT"

Marianna Osborne
5 years ago
Views:

1 SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SUIT NO. 175 OF 1996 BETWEEN: JOHN G. M. COMPTON v PATRICK JOSEPH Petitioner Repondent Mr. P. J. Huband QC for Plaintiff Mr. 0. W. Larcher for Defendant 1996: March 27 May 14 JUDGMENT d'auverqne J. a writ of Summon indored with a Statement of Claim filed on 1t of March, 1996, Pla iff claimed againt De following: "(a) (b) Damage for libel. Aggravated damage. (c) An injunction retraining the Pla iff by himelf, hi agent, ervant or otherwie from making or publihing any or imilar defamatory tatement to or concerning the Plaintiff." On that ame date the Petitioner filed a Summon for an un~on Interlo~-~~ againt the Repondent under Order 29 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court. Summon read a follow: f\ "That the Repondent be retrained by an Interlocutory Injunction, by himelf, agent, or ervant or otherwie from continuing to make groundle allegation againt the

2 Petitioner to wit: The Petitioner inter alia "owned a Geet Company and in iation e Geet PLC wa enriching Geet by extenion enri f!1 and/or other word or imilar word or word de Petitioner: until a r judgment thi action or until further order and that cot in thi application hall cot in the caue." Summon wa upport by an Affidavit Petit depoed inter that wa Prime Miniter of Saint Luc that the Repondent wrote to him alleging that had larget hareholding in a Geet Company, er Geet and a wa in a poition of lict of negotiation on f the farmer of Saint Luc to purchae Geet PLC and that ownerhip of thoe hare, the Petitioner wa extenion enriching himelf by enri Geet, ince t of t aet Geet PLC wa far le than the um paid Petitioner her depoed that the aid letter wa to lowing: (a) The Preident, Sa Luc Chamber of Commerce. (b) Hon. Leader of Oppoition. (c) U.S. Trade Repreentative, U.S. Embay, Barbado. (d) European Community Banana Trade A~ciationi and that the content the letter wa o broadcated on Radio CANA and the Voice of America. Petitioner depoed that ometime ln February 1959, while a practiing Barriter, he obtained ixty-five (65) hare for ixtyf dollar ($65) from a client in a company known a Sugar Manufacturer Limited, the hare of which were purchaed by Geet Indutrie (Wet Indie) Limited, a Shipping and Exporting Company and renamed Geet Indutrie (Etate) Limited, a Company concerned with planting and reaping banana. 2

3 He depoed that he did not ell thoe hare and that by the iue bonu hare they now amounted to a total of even hundred f fteen (715) hare. That he had forgotten about moreover never gained or benefitt from the purchae of. He again depoed that the iued hare of Geet Etate) Limited, numbered 7, 979, 972 of which Geet t e t Indie) Limited own 7,976,600 or 99.9% ; hareholding, whilt the econd in number, i in actual fact a mall hareholding or % of the iued hare and that t ue the adjective " t" with repect to hareholding meant i undertood to mean that hi hareholding wa enormou repreented a correponding ficant t Geet Indutrie (Etate) Ltd. He depoed that the Company in which he i a der i completely eparate and dit from and whol unconnected with any Geet Company concerned wi any hape or form and wa negotiation with banana no way involved in any negot for the purchae of Geet PLC. Again he depoed that a Prime Miniter he wa never engaged in negotiation with any Geet Company on of the Saint Lucia Banana Grower Aociation or anyone elei that he wa not involved negotiation between Windward Iland Banana Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) and Fyffe PLC for the aid purchae. He concluded hi Affidavit by depoing that the tatement and allegation by the Repondent are untrue and are motivated by malice and that the Repondent wa well aware of the fality of thee allegation, but he made them recklely, without any regard for the truth and that the tatement were pecifically to embarra him politically and in o doing advance hi peronal caue and thoe of hi aociate and political upporter. 3

4 uual undertaking a to damage wa tated. On the 26th day of March, 1996 an Affidavit in Reply wa fi Repondent. I paue here to tate that I aw that Affidavit for at the hearing on the 27th March, 1996 at 2.15 p.m. f t Repondent depoed he wa Secretary to Saint Lucia Banana Salvation Committee which repreent over two 2,000) Banana Farmer Luc He depoed that the Affidavit Petitioner wa gro eading ince it conited of entence word extract a letter and interview over a riod of t t entence and word were taken out of context. He depoed that according to t t Share Holding Account Geet Indut e (Etate) Limited, the Plaintiff ha l hareholding in the aid Company ter Geet Indutrie (Wet ) Limited. He further depoed that the regiter at the Regitrar of Company fice how that there are three Companie the Geet namely:- (1) Geet Indutrie (Wet Indie) Limited; (2) Geet Indutrie (Etate) Limited; (3) Geet Indut e (Development) Limited. The Repondent' Affidavit categori ly note the following: That the Petitioner after Geet Indutrie (Wet Indie) Limited i the econd larget hareholder; that Geet Indutrie Etate Limited i a Company within the Geet Group, part of the parent Company Geet Indutrie Limited incorporated in the United Kingdom. 4

5 Further depoition of the Re indicated that the Petit wa mileading the Court, and depoed to That the ame peron ls D mentioned Companie which form t That the Saint Lucia Banana Grower Act wa amended to Windward Iland Banana Development and (WIBDECO) the e to and market produced in Saint Lucia. That by a harehol r Agreement dated 28th March, 1994 made between the Government of t Government of Saint Lucia and Windward Iland, it wa Windward Iland, Banana Grower Aociat that the firt of the Windward Iland Banana Deve (WIBDECO) would comprie of lowing: ( i) The Prime Miniter or the nominee of Windward Iland. of ( i i) A repreentative the Banana Grower each Windward Iland. (iii) A member to be propoed by t and mutually agreed between Prime Miniter Again he depoed "that according to the Chairman the Windward Iland Banana Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) on the Acquiition of Geet Banana Buine the Board of the Windward Iland Banana Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) had the full upport of the Prime Miniter of the Windward Iland and the Board of Banana Grower Aociation;" that "the loan for the purchae of Geet Banana were guaranteed by the four Windward Iland Government which aid loan wa financed by the mot pretigiou merchant Bank, Samuel Montgagu of the United Kingdom," 5

6 that "during the aid negotiation the Petitioner wa in Kingdom to guarantee the a loan for the Geet Banana Bu." He concluded hi Affidavit by depoing that in ter to. Petitioner he pecifical tated he wa ficat th regard what to a conflict of 11 in negotiation of Geet Banana ion 11 that the a ter wa an obervation not mot ed by malice or de to malign character and reputation of the iff; moreover obervation wa a r comment on a matter of public that the grant of an unction would amount to tifl democratic right of f matter of public interet. of expreion and fa comment on Argument At the hearing Learned Counel for the Petit r quoted cited cae of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 AC 396 t White Book, 1995 Edition Page 515 under the c Particular Intance (1) Defamation. It Court will not ret ication of a defamatory tatement... but the Court 11 retrain publication of obviou lie;" He quoted Halbury' Law of and 4th Vol which provide "when qualified privilege or fair comment i to be pleaded, an injunction may neverthe be granted if the aintiff can atify the Court on the iue of malice." He argued that the defence mut be baed on fact and reiterated the Petitioner' Affidavit. He aid that the fali in the Repondent' cae i that he linked one Geet Company to another and that hare in Geet Indutrie (Etate) Limited doe not mean Geet PLC. 6

7 He aid there wa malice on of Re can clearly be een by icat letter wrote to Petitioner, to bodie and by of famatory tatement on two Voice of America. tat, namely, CANA At thi juncture, Counel Repondent to Counel the Petit reading from a wa not tendered a an t and whi not got to Counel for the Petitioner ied by tat that Counel what the broadcat wa about but le ref reading of that er a from Court. Counel for t Petitioner cont that malice i a fact for the judge to ide and t Repondent d retrained from tatement that are untrue. He further contended Speech a Contitut wa not an t mut regard for the reputat He argued that the 715 Geet Et~e Ltd had no nexu h Geet PLC, the Repondent wa be iciou o ng ha caued irreparable damage to the Petitioner. He aid that election wa Contitutionally due by April 1997 and that the Repondent' aim wa to damage the Petitioner pol i ly and quoted Bradhaw v Sealy (1978) 32 WIR Page 111. He concluded hi argument by tating that the balance of convenience laid on the ide of the Petitioner and therefore the Court hould grant the Order of injunction a prayed. 7

8 Learned Counel for the Repondent commenced hi argument tating that it wa a ou matter to curtail the Repondent ing cert tatement and t "politic" appeared to t reaon why the injunction wa ought. He reiterated the Repondent' f t and that t of Geet Indut e (Etate) Ltd t how that the Petitioner wa the larget holder after Geet (Wet ) Ltd, an obervation that can be c made by all upon a ance at the aid exhibit. He argued that the obervation made wa a f comment and quot Gatley on Libel and Slander 8th Edition Paragraph 884 Page 387 "Comment on a matter of public interet. In cae of comment on a matter of public interet the l t of comment are indeed. Thi i epeci ly o in the cae of public men. II fill public poition mut not be too thin-kinned re to comment made upon them." "One who undertake to fill a ic office of f to ic attack and criticim and it i now admitted and ed that the public interet re that a man' public conduct l open to the mot c ticim." Unle there i ome clear evidence of malice or ome mitatement of fact, no action be commenced, however evere the te the icim may. It hould be recalled even if the defendant i mitaken a to one or ome of the fact on which he comment, he will have ction of the Defamation Act 1952, 6. Thoe who carry on a ine in which they deal with the public generally are in the like poition a public men; their manner of doing buine, in all it apect, i open to the mot evere comment." He further quoted the cae of Hector v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda (1990) 2 AER Page 103 and Silkin v Beaverbrook Newpaper Ltd v Another 2 AER 1958 Page 516 which tate that the tet to be conidered in a cae of libel 8

9 where fair comment i i comment i an t ion He further quot t cae of Horrock v Lowe AER Page 662 which held that even gro unreaoning prejudice doe not itelf amount to malice. He treed cogniance hould taken that atti the Court i one of caution when dealing with delicate matter of thi type, fair comment on a matter treed that the Repondent wa Public Interet. He eating a fact and that mal mut be proved. Counel for the Petitioner ied Defamation Act 1952 no relevance to Saint Lucia and found on a balance of probabilitie. malice wa a to be CONCLUSIONS deciion wa re ince appeared to me, argument placed by ide that I had to much reearch on 'Interlocutory I unction' act of l and Slander. Petitioner ha petit the Court for an unction retraining the Repondent from hing and repeating famatory tatement about Petitioner. Generally, court are reluctant to fetter free peech becaue of the quetion that may arie during the proceeding, uch a whether the meaning of t word or tatement complained of are defamatory and whether the defence of fair comment and jutification are applicable. for the Petitioner \ ucceed in hi requet for thi injunction he mut atify thi Court that there wa malice in the publication of the aid alleged defamatory tatement and that 9

10 i reaon to 1 1 if were a nature Re 10 the tatement were n comment on a matter eret." burden i fore on Petit to by t I mut to note wa never a over CANA ce were thee two and i cannot a II ficat on an iue on f Farmer Luc " Moreover i my one on a i ar iue, not to a: ( 1) (2) Hon. Pre Luc it - Commerce. ( 3) u.. ( 4) Banana A oc In my judgment there i ice regard to writ Statement, and fore 1 1 where an 11 even if tated comment. 10

11 lll de il de 2) t SUZIE d'auvergne PUISNE JUDGE 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) JOHN G. M. COMPTON PATRICK JOSEPH. 1996: March 27 May 14 JUDGMENT

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SUIT NO. 175 OF 1996 BETWEEN: JOHN G. M. COMPTON vs PATRICK JOSEPH Petitioner Respondent Mr. P. J. Husbands QC for Plaintiff Mr. O. W. Larcher for Defendant