| Fiji Islands - Ports Terminal Ltd v Arun - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)
ACTION NO. HBC 592 OF 1999S
ass=MsoNormal alal align=center style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Between:
PORTS NAL LIMITED
Plaintiff
and
VALESHWAN SINGH
TAMARISI DIGITAKI
First Defendants
and
TONY SINGH
Second Defendant
and
THE SUN (FIJI) NEWS LIMITEDn>
Third Defendant
p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> H. Lateef with Ms. B. Narayan for the Plaintiff
No appearance by the Defendants
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
On 4 October 1999 the Fij, a daily newspaper circulating throughout Fiji published an article under the title “TroubTrouble at Ports”.
ass=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The tiff issued a writ in December 1999 in which it claimed that the article in its ordinary anry and natural meaning falsely alleged:
“(i) &nbbsp; that the Plaintiff tiff was disreputable and dishonest.
(ii) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
&nb"> &nnbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;&&nbp;; &nsp; that the Piffntnd sand some of its senior officials are involved in the act of smuggling goods awaiting shipout o Suvaf premisesan>
(iv) p;&nbbsp;&nsp; &nsp; p; &nspan>That the Plai Plaintiff did not conduct any investigation into taud smost of the senior staff of the Plaintiff were involved
in same.
(v) p;&nssp; p; &nbp; &nbp;
No acknowledgment of service was returned by any of the Defendants and on 17 April 2000, no notice of intention to defend having been
filed, Judgment was entered against the first named First Defendant and the Third Defendant with damages to be assessed.
The hearing of the assessment of damages took place on 5 September 2000. The Dents dt appear. nbsp; Osp; One witness Plai Plaintiff’s
Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Herbert Hazelman was called. He producwritten stnt in w in which he set out the background to the publication
of the article comp complained of. He averred that the Plainreputation and business had been “greatly injured” by the article which
was misleading, mal, malicious and deceptive. An apolog beenht from the the Sun but none was forthcoming. Clarifying his ece in
answ answernswer to questions from the Court Mr. Hazeadmitted that he could not quantify the damage suffered by the Plaintiff which
is a monopolnopoly. Mteef told me that lossepusseputation was the basis fors for the damages claimed.
At the conclusion of the evidence Ms. Narayan handed up a carefulepared written submission.&ion. Relying on the various authorities
considered in the submission Ms. Narayan suggested that an appropriate award to the Plaintiff would be $15,000.
After reading Ms. Narayan’s written submission I referred to semarks of Lord Reid in L Lewis v. Daily Telegraph [1963] 2 All ER 151 who at 156 G when discussing the incidence of taxation in awards of special damages for defamation said:
“There can be no difference in princbetween loss of income caused by negligence and loss of incf income caused by libel. Let me takst
the case of t of the plaintiff company. A company cannot be ed in d in its feelings it can only be injured in its pocket. Iputation
can be id by a ly a libel but that injury must sound in money. The; The injury need noessecessarily be confined to lo income.
Itdwiltdwill may be in.&nbd. But insofar as the compata esta establishes that the libel has, or has probably, diminished its profits
Ik tha Gour cau> case is relevant”.
In view of Mr. Hazelman’s concession that loss of income was not being said to heen caused by the libel I sl I sought further assistance
on the basis for an award for and the quantum of damages.
On the basithe further authorities cited I am satisfied that although the Plaintiff has not identifiedified actual financial loss
caused by the Defendants’ libel it has established that its reputation has suffered and accordingly is entitled to recover. As was
said rd Greene in Rook v. Fairrie [1941] 1 KB 507:
“In a libel action the damages awarre for the most part and ofnd often entirely without any real connection with any pecuniary loss
at all”.
In the pt case the libel was, as I find it a serious one, particularly given the nature of the Plai Plaintiff’s business. As has
been nthe Defendantndants have never sought to justify or apologise for the libel which they published. They have declined to tay
part in these proceedings.
In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the compensation sought by the Plaintiffs is reasonable. I accordingly them $15,0015,000
with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
M.D. Scottn>
Judge
29 November 0an>
HBC0592.99S
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/127.html
