HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Suri v Tradewinds Investment Co Ltd 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	21 February 2025 	
		
Parties: 	Gabriel K Suri v Tradewinds Investment Company Limited, Editor of the Islands Sun Newspaper, Richard Tepuke Pautangata 	
		
Date of hearing: 	6 March 2024	
		
Court file number(s): 	688 of 2021	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Lawry; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Judgment is entered against the Third Defendant.
2. The Third Defendant is to pay the Claimant $100,000.00 for general damages.
3. The Third Defendant is to pay the Claimant $70,000.00 for aggravated damages.
4. The Third Defendant is to pay the costs of the Claimant on an indemnity basis. If not agreed to be assessed.	
		
Representation: 	Mr C Fakarii for the Claimant 
No Appearance for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Solomon Star v Wale [2016] SBCA 10, Sikua and Manele v Tradewinds Investment [2010] SBHC 95, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 688 of 2021

BETWEEN:

GABRIEL K. SURI
Claimant

AND:

TRADEWINDS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD 
First Defendant

AND:

EDITOR OF THE ISLAND SUN NEWSPAPER
Second Defendant

AND:

RICHARD TEPUKE PAUTANGATA
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 6 March 2024
Date of Judgment: 21 February 2025

Mr C Fakarii for the Claimant 
No Appearance for the Defendant 

Lawry; PJ
JUDGMENT 
1. 	On Friday 12 November 2021 an article appeared in the Island Sun newspaper issue number 4107. The article was titled ‘Defenders of APID theft in Rennell.’ [‘the article’] The Claimant is a legal practitioner practising in Solomon Islands and was named in the article. The First Defendant is the owner of the Island Sun newspaper. The Second Defendant is the editor of that newspaper. The Third Defendant is the journalist who wrote the article.
2. 	The article is an attack on Asia Pacific Investment Development (APID) and others. The Claimant complains that the title of the article and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 32 read together have defamed him.
3. 	The First and Second Defendants filed a defence to the claim, the Third Defendant did not. By 30 September 2022 the Court had given directions for the preparation for the trial. By 6 March 2023 the Claimant discontinued the claim against the First and Second Defendants.
4. 	The Claimant however has continued the claim against the Third Defendant. In a statement deposed on 24 May 2023 the Claimant annexed publication of further attacks on his character in the on-line social media platform Facebook. It appears that the following the continuation of the alleged attacks on his character the Claimant hardened his resolve to continue the claim against the Third Defendant.
5. 	By 21 July 2023 the Third Defendant had still taken no steps. The Court set a date for trial being 25 September 2023 on the basis that the Defendant had taken no steps but as the claim was for defamation a trial was appropriate rather than hearing an application for a default judgment.
6. 	On 25 September 2023 the Third Defendant appeared and sought an order vacating the trial so that he could file a defence. His explanation was that he understood counsel for the First and Second Defendants were supposed to file a defence on his behalf as well as for the First and Second Defendant. He sought time to instruct counsel and to file a defence. It was clear that he knew he was not represented and had not filed a defence as required.
7. 	The Court vacated the trial and granted an extension for the filing of a defence to 23 October 2023. That date was agreed to by the Third Defendant. The Court ordered that the case be called for mention on 10 November 2023. The Third Defendant did not file a defence by 23 October 2023. He did not appear nor have counsel appear on his behalf on 10 November 2023. As there may have been an explanation for those failures the Court granted a further extension for the filing of a defence to 6 December 2023.
8. 	The Court listed a further mention hearing for 8 December 2023. By 8 December 2023 the Third Defendant had still not filed a defence nor did he appear either in person or by counsel on 8 December 2023. The Court then fixed a date for trial being 6 March 2024 with a final mention listed for 29 February 2024.
9. 	On 26 February 2024 the Third Defendant filed a document asking for a deferment of the scheduled mention on 29 February and of what he called the pre-trial conference on 6 March 2024, asking for it to be after the Provincial and National elections scheduled for 17 April 2024.
10. 	On 28 February 2024 the Court delivered a ruling refusing the adjournment and confirming that the trial would proceed on 6 March 2024 and that the hearing on 6 March 2024 was not a pre-trial conference but the trial itself. The Defendant was not represented nor did he appear on either 29 February 2024 nor at the trial on 6 March 2024. By the trial date he had still not filed a defence.
11. 	On 6 March 2024 the Court proceeded with the trial.  On 15 March 2024 the Third Defendant filed a letter with the Court outlining that he had suffered a bereavement in his family. Since that time he has still taken no further steps.
12. 	The Third Defendant has therefore failed to file a defence since being served with the claim at 2.37 pm on 9 December 2021. When granted an extension of time to 23 October 2023 to file a defence, he failed to do so. When granted a further extension of time to 6 December 2023 he again failed to do so. He has not sought any further extension. He has known he is obliged to file a defence if he wishes to defend the claim. As a result the trial proceeded in his absence.
13. 	The Claimant relied on his own sworn statements. He also relied on the sworn statement of Natasha Rita filed on 14 December 2021. Their evidence is unchallenged.
14. 	The article was an attack on the Claimant alleging his conduct in acting as counsel for Asia Pacific Investment Development (‘APID’) was unethical.  The article alleged that APID had stolen land and resources from the people of Rennell and that the Claimant had provided assistance to APID to defend APID’s theft. It said that in Court the Claimant had distorted the laws of the country. He recorded that the Claimant was a former Attorney General and wrote:
	“I have high regard for him as a lawyer until I came across some of his articles and documents and listening to him in Court in his vehement defense of APID mining and logging operations on my island, which many regard those to be illegal including the Registrar of Titles who cancelled the registration of West Rennell.
	From there I started to question his appointment once as an AG and credibility as a member of the Solomon Islands Bar Association – or has he moved out from his profession’s ethics.”
15. 	Such words in the context of the article as a whole clearly imply that the Claimant was not a fit person to have been the Attorney General and that his conduct was unethical and that he lacked the credibility to be part of the Solomon Island Bar Association. The same themes were repeated throughout the article. In reference to a civil case number 371 of 2017 the article alleged that APID had paid the acquisition officer $40,000.00 to fraudulently register West Rennell for APID. The article continued:
	“It is appalling that Gabriel Suri, a private lawyer, in Tepuke’s case represented the Attorney General who stood in to defend Penrose Palmer’s corrupt act as the First Defendant – I allege that Suri steps in to represent the AG as a private lawyer hired by APID”
16. 	The words used must be understood to mean that the Claimant has been employed by APID to represent the Attorney General who was counsel for the acquisition officer. No basis has been put forward to show there was any truth in that allegation. The Claimant may have acted for other defendants in that case but that is a totally different situation from what was alleged in the article.
17. 	A legal practitioner is dependent on his/her reputation for professionalism, honesty and ethical conduct in order to continue to progress in his/her career.  If a person in the community considers that a company has acted dishonestly that does not mean that such company cannot come to the courts of Solomon Islands to present their side of the story. Such a company is entitled to be represented by counsel who subject to the Legal Practitioners (Professional Conduct) Rules 1995 is obliged to conduct the case in such manner as he considers to be most advantageous to his client. Yet the article reported that the writer considered it against professional ethics for the Claimant to represent APID and that as a law abiding citizen the Claimant needs to refrain from doing so. The comment must be taken to mean that the Claimant acted unethically and by continuing to do so he was acting contrary to the law.
18. 	The article was clearly defamatory. No evidence was adduced to prove the truth of any of the defamatory statements. The statement had gone well beyond anything that could be said to be fair comment. I find that the article sought to lower the Claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society. It would expose him to hatred contempt and ridicule and discredited him in his profession.
19. 	I accept that the article would cause the Claimant to be regarded by an ordinary unprejudiced person as unprofessional and unethical. It would also cause him to be regarded as a senior lawyer who used his skills to mislead the Court and the community and distorted the law for the benefit of his client. It would cause him to be regarded as having been unfit to be the Attorney General. It would cause him to be considered as unlawfully representing an acquisition officer who had been alleged to have acted fraudulently. The claim of defamation has been clearly made out and is entitled to damages. Evidence was put forward that the First and Second Defendants have settled the dispute between them and the Claimant. Evidence was put forward about the Third Defendant continuing allegations of unethical and unlawful conduct on the part of the Claimant after the proceedings were commenced. This is a case where there has been no remorse on the part of the Third Defendant. The Claimant seeks both general damages and aggravated damages.
20. 	In Solomon Star v Wale [2016] SBCA 10, the Court of Appeal said at paragraph [12]:
	“The true extent of the damage, distress and embarrassment both locally and internationally, as the notice of appeal refers to it, is set out in the evidence of the respondent in his sworn statement at page 34 of the Appeal Book. That evidence was not challenged at trial. There was not even a request to cross examine the respondent on that evidence. Thus the trial judge could accept that evidence. Indeed, unchallenged, he had little choice but to accept it as the basis on which damages should be assessed under that head.”
	The Court then discussed the issue of punitive exemplary and aggravated damages at paragraph [18]. The Court said:
	“Punitive damages are an example of exemplary damages. Exemplary damages may be appropriate when there is evidence of oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of government, or where there is evidence of a calculated attempt at making a profit from the defamation which may well exceed the damages payable. Aggravated damages are quite different. Aggravated damages may be indicated having regard to the conduct of the publisher towards the victim. As the learned trial judge correctly said, exemplary damages are not intended to be compensatory whereas aggravated damages are.”
21. 	In the present case the conduct of the Third Defendant to the Claimant after publication was such that he continued the harm he had done. He accused the Claimant of helping those who stole from the people of Rennell. This is a clear case where aggravated damages are appropriate.
22. 	The Claimant seeks $70,000.00 for such aggravated damages. Having regard to the whole article and the subsequent conduct of the Third Defendant I consider that figure to be at the lower end of what might have been claimed but I consider it to be appropriate in all the circumstances. In his continued attack on the Claimant in facebook he published that he would commence criminal proceedings against the Claimant. I consider that the nature of the further publication reinforces my conclusion that the $70,000.00 claimed for aggravated damages is appropriate.
23. 	I turn to general damages. The Claimant having received $150,000.00 from the First and Second Claimants has sought a total of $400,000.00 in general damages. I acknowledge that the allegations made are particularly serious when made against a former Attorney General and senior legal practitioner. Without a reputation for professionalism and integrity a lawyer has lost what can take a lifetime to earn. In the case of the Claimant, his reputation had previously been enhanced as a former president of the Solomon Islands Bar Association, a member of the Law Reform Commission, a former chairman of the Anti Money Laundering Commission and of the Solomon Islands National Sports Council. He is a member of the Solomon Islands Ports Authority and Vice Chancellor of the Anglican Church of Melanesia.
24. 	I have considered the reasons given for the amounts awarded in Sikua and Manele v Tradewinds Investment [2010] SBHC 95 and in Solomon Star v Wale. I consider that a greater amount is warranted than in Sikua and Manele. I bear in mind the comments of the Court of Appeal in Wale’s case. The First and Second Defendants published for profit. However they published only once. I conclude that general damages should be fixed at $250,000.00. I note that the Claimant settled his claim against the First and Second Defendants in the sum of $150,000.00. I therefore fix the sum for general damages against the Third Defendant at $100,000.00.
Orders
1.	Judgment is entered against the Third Defendant.
2.	The Third Defendant is to pay the Claimant $100,000.00 for general damages.
3.	The Third Defendant is to pay the Claimant $70,000.00 for aggravated damages.
4.	The Third Defendant is to pay the costs of the Claimant on an indemnity basis. If not agreed to be assessed.
By the Court
Hon. Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge