Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Tonga Law Reports

Lasalosi v Hausia [2000] TongaLawRp 40; [2000] Tonga LR 415 (28 November 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA

Lasalosi

v

Hausia

Supreme Court, Nuku'alofa
Ford J
C 16/00

31 October 2000; 28 November 2000

Tort — defamation — can be publication to one person only

Defamation — damages — limited to action pleaded — reduced

The respondent, Kanongata'a Hausia, was the builder and owner of the Hideaway Resort on the island of 'Eua. The respondent claimed that Pita (his employee) had told him that he (Pita) had been told by Vika Lasalosi (the appellant) that "Taina" (who was Vika's sister) had told her (Vika) the story that the resort was financed out of selling marijuana. In 2000 the respondent brought an action in defamation against the appellant which was heard in the Magistrates' Court at 'Eua on 27 March. The respondent succeeded and was awarded damages in the sum of $500 plus court costs. The appellant appealed against the decision. Her grounds were that the Magistrate erred in fact and in law and that the learned Magistrate's decision was against the weight of the evidence.

Held:

1. The first ground of appeal was that the Magistrate erred in law in not giving the appellant (who was not legally represented) the opportunity to make a closing address in her defence. The court found no basis for this ground in the official transcript.

2. The second and third grounds of appeal were that the Magistrate erred in law and in fact in concluding that the respondent had proved his claim and the Magistrate's decision was against the weight of evidence. The court found no basis for interfering with the Magistrate's decision.

3. On the ground that the damages awarded were excessive the court held that the appellant was being made to pay for telling the story to the police and for spreading the rumours when these matters were not pleaded, proved, or even put to the appellant in evidence. The only evidence of publication of the drug story was to Pita and if damages were going to be awarded, then they had to be assessed on that basis.

4. Publication of a defamatory statement to one person only does give rise to a recognised cause of action, even if that person disbelieved the statement.

5. The damages award needed to be commensurate with the extent of the publication. The damages award was excessive having regard to the extent of the publication. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the learned Magistrate was varied by substituting an award of $100. The court fee fixed at $21 remained.

Cases considered:

Bekker v Wrack [1937] NZLR 549

Cocker v Police Department (Supreme Court, Cr App 1251/98, 5 March 1999, Ward CJ)

Hough v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1940] 2 KB 507; [1940] 3 All ER 31 (CA)

Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 1156