Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Naivaluwaqa v Ramakita [2005] FJHC 609; HBC0287.2002 (1 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC0287 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TIMOCI NAIVALUWAQA
PLAINTIFF

AND:

SERU RAMAKITA
DEFENDANT

Mr Naivalu for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the Defendant

Date of Hearing: 29 June 2005
Date of June July 2005

JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

This is an action for damages for defamation. There had been adjournments previously and it went to hearing despite another application to adjourn. Subpoenas had been issued but only the Plaintiff gave evidence. It was a matter of Formal Proof.

Judgment in liability had previously been entered by default. I doubted the validity of this and required the Plaintiff to give evidence for the whole of his claim.

I am satisfied that the Defendant was duly served with notice of this proceeding and with notice of the purported default judgment and of the hearing, purportedly to assess damages. The Defendant has never appeared.

The Evidence

The Plaintiff by his evidence satisfied me that he was a Trade Union official and a well respected member of the community both in this country and overseas. I am satisfied that the Defendant wrote a letter dated 30 October 2001 in which he said inter alia that the Plaintiff had “shoved down the throat” of the [Union] in-house committee a decision to remove the name of the Defendant from the grievance pay roll and to cease acting for the Defendant, that the Plaintiff was “a dictator” and “a Mr Nobody” and an incompetent person to hold office as General Secretary of the Union and that the Plaintiff had been bought by the Shangri-la’s Fijian Resort and that the resort had assisted his trip to Malaysia. I am satisfied that the words used were calculated to disparage the Plaintiff in his position as Trade Union Secretary. I am satisfied that the letter was circulated to all members of the Executive Committee of the Plaintiff’s Union and that this is how the letter was drawn to his attention.

That is as far as the Plaintiff’s evidence went. I am left to draw inferences. Counsel, who had accepted the brief at the 11^th hour he said, took the matter as far as he could but made no submissions.

Decision

Being largely uninformed about this special branch of the Law of Tort, I resorted to Law of Torts, 3^rd Ed., Balkin & Davis, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Australia 2004, Chapter 18. At law the Plaintiff must show that the words he complains of were “of a kind likely to lead ordinarily decent folk to think less of the person about whom [they were] made”. He must also show that the words clearly identified him and he must prove publication of the words to a third party. To assess his claim for damages I resorted to McGregor on Damages, 17^th Ed. chapter 39. The Plaintiff gave practically no evidence about the effect of this letter on him, but his claim is both in the area of special damage defamation because he pleads pecuniary loss and in the area of defamation per se. Damages are at large and do not need to be related to any pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss is pleaded but not proved in this case. The Plaintiff may obtain damages for injury to reputation, and injury to feelings, the only pleaded heads which are remotely supported by his evidence.

The authorities in McGregor leave the assessment up to me. I advised Counsel at the hearing that the Plaintiff would receive nothing like the $100,000.00 which he claimed.

I am satisfied there was injury to his feelings and I am satisfied there was injury to his reputation from the fact that the Executive Committee members received this letter and the fact that they reported it to him. Beyond that the depth of injury to be given solace in damages is a matter of inference only. In the circumstances of both the Plaintiff and Defendant as I apprehend them I award damages of $1,000.00. All other pleaded claims are dismissed.

The Plaintiff pleaded and at the hearing sought indemnity costs which Counsel informed me were $3,500.00. Against the Defendant I award costs of $500.00. In a related action against another five Defendants heard simultaneously with this I have awarded the remaining $3,000.00.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
July 2005