Unreported National Court Decisions
N388
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
W.S. 618 OF 1981
BETWEEN: GLENN B. WATTERSTON
PLAINTIFF
AND: HENRY MOSES
DEFENDANT
Waigani
Kapi DCJ
23-24 June 1982
7 September 1982
KAPI DCJ:  This is an action for damages for defamation. In this matter, the plaintiff entered judgment on the grounds that the defendant failed to deliver a defence. The matter came on before me for assessment of damages only.
The plaintiff is employed by the Papua New Guinea Electricity Commission as the Principal Electrical Inspector for the country. The plaintiff became involved in an industrial dispute between Bougainville Copper Limited and the Bougainville Mining Workers Union. It all began over a dispute regarding one Mr. Peter Lahis, an electrician who was employed by Bougainville Copper Limited as electrical foreman at Arawa Maintenance Unit. The Company was unhappy over inadequate electrical safety procedures, non-rectification of electrical faults which involved unsafe electrical installations and other supervisory performance problems. This resulted in the termination of employment of Mr. Lahis from the Company. This developed into a dispute and the Bougainville Mining Workers Union became involved and demanded his reinstatement. This developed into an industrial dispute and a tribunal was appointed under the Industrial Relations Act to arbitrate the dispute.
The plaintiff was invited to give evidence at the hearing, by the company to comment on the circumstances of the dispute. This involved questions of whether any breaches of the Elcom Act had occured and to comment on the competency of Mr. Lahis as an electrician.
In short, his evidence revealed that he supported the Company’s view of the dispute. The tribunal dismissed the Union’s claim and did not reinstate Mr. Peter Lahis.
Subsequent to this, the defendant, the President of the Union, wrote a letter dated 26th May 1981 to the Branch General Manager of Elcom in Arawa. The full text of this letter is set out in the Statement of Claim. He made the following allegations in the letter:
1.       that the plaintiff collaborated with Bougainville Copper Limited for monetary gains when dealing with the dispute.
2.       Disloyal to the State and the Electricity Commission.
3.       Selling the country to foreigners.
Copies of the letter were distributed to:
·         Fr. John Momis, M.P.
·         Electricity Commissioner in Port Moresby.
·         John Banono, President of Mungkas Association of Papua New Guinea.
The plaintiff is an experienced electrician. He has been in the Electrical industry for twenty-five years. He is a Member of the Australian Institute of Electrical Inspectors. He is highly regarded as a professional and honest. He is also actively involved in community activities such as Apex Club and Yacht Club. During his life-time he has not been accused of dishonesty or any of the kind of conduct with which he has been accused of.
I am satisfied that the allegations by the defendant in the letter are defamatory and that this has injured the plaintiff’s reputation.
Assessment of damages in defamation cases is not an easy task. This is because there is no precise method of calculating the loss. Windeyer J. in Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Pty. Ltd.[cmlvii]1 said:
“A man’s reputation, his good name, the estimation in which he is held in the opinion of others, is not a possession of his as a chattel is. Damage to it cannot be measured as harm to a tangible thing is measured. Apart from special damages strictly so called and damages for a loss of clients or customers, money and reputation are not commensurables. It seems to me that, properly speaking, a man defamed does not get compensation for his damaged reputation, that is simply because he was publicly defamed. For this reason, compensation by damages operates in two ways—-as a vindication of the plaintiff to the public and as a consolation to him for wrong done. Compensation is here a solatium rather than a monetary recompense for harm measurable in money. The variety of the matters which, it has been held, may be considered in assessing damages for defamation must in many cases mean that the amount of a verdict is the product of a mixture of inextricable considerations. One of these is the conduct of an the intentions of the defendant, in particular whether he was actuated by express malice.”.
In awarding damages in this case, I have considered the following matters.
Firstly, defamatory material was not distributed widely. There is no financial loss arising out of the allegations by the defendant. It is apparent from evidence that the allegations had very little effect on the Electricity Commission because the plaintiff was given a new contract of employment after these allegations were made.
I have taken into account the mental suffering the plaintiff must have experienced when awaiting the renewal of contract as a result of allegations by the defendant. There was some suggestion that he was going to be offered only an 18 months contract. He believed this had some connection with the allegations by the defendant. He also had sleepless nights, waking up at middle of night for coffee or smoke.
The plaintiff also claimed that his health was affected. This was caused mainly by worries he had over his relationship with wife and children. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff brought about this by his own choosing by having to share the letters with his family. However, I do not intend to go into this in any great detail as I consider any injury to health is very minimal.
In assessing the damages I have also taken into account the conduct of the defendant. See Praed v. Graham[cmlviii]2. Since the initial letter, the defendant has made similar allegations in his subsequent submission to the tribunal. I have only referred to this for purposes of assessing the conduct of the defendant, which in my view has aggravated the damages to the plaintiff.
The defendant has not made any attempts to retract or apologise for any of the allegations. I am satisfied from this that the allegations were activated by malice.
Taking all these considerations into account, I have assessed the plaintiff’s damages at K2000.00.
I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action.
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Craig Kirke and Wright
Counsel: C. Coady
Solicitor for the Defendant: Reuben and Zesus
Counsel: Numana Kila

[cmlvii](1966-67) 40 A.L.J.R. 124 at 137
[cmlviii](1890) 24 Q.B.D. 53