Malone v Lettsome

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Glasgow, E.F.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1966
• Neutral Citation: VG 1966 HC 1
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 21 of 1966
• Date: 01 January 1966

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court

Glasgow, J.

Civil Suit No. 21 of 1966

Malone

and

Lettsome

Appearances:

H.L. Harney for Plaintiff

Z.M.H. Butler for Defendant

Tort - Libel and Slander — Libel.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the defendant, at a public meeting, falsely stated that (a) the plaintiff, who was a Building Inspector at the Public Works Department, was not qualified for the job and (b) that the Government offered him the post because he was unable to pay the customs duties on his taxi. The issue was whether the words were defamatory.

Held: Regarding statement (a) the words were defamatory and the plaintiff was not required to prove special damages. With regards to statement (b) even if the words were defamatory the plaintiff had not established that he had suffered special damages. Plaintiff awarded damages for statement (a).

Glasgow, E.F.

1 The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for damages for slander. The Particulars of Claim read as follows:-

“Particulars of Claim”

• 1. The Plaintiff is a Civil Servant employed as Building Inspector by the Government of the British Virgin Islands.

• 2. On the 1st day of June 1966 the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff and of him in the way of his employment the following words:

  • “The Building Inspector. Three men applied for the job, namely Antonio Maduro, who was a building foreman in Public Works Department also a building contractor. One Mr. Hughes who was working at Public Works Department and is a builder and present holder of the post, who I know to be a taxi driver and a bus-driver. The Government did not answer those two men but give the job to this man who is so dumb that he reads the plans upside down. The reason why the Government give him the job is because he owes the duties on his bus and also on his car, he could not pay, so the only way to get the money was to give him the job, this I can prove, no mistake about it.”

• 3. The said words were spoken at a public meeting held at East End, Tortola at which were present Police Corporal Aymer, David Freeman amongst others whose names are at present unknown.

• 4. The defendant meant and was understood to mean thereby that the Plaintiff was (i) a fool and incapable of performing his duties as Building Inspector (ii) that he was dishonest and did not pay his import duties (iii) that he was bankrupt.

• 5. In consequence of the said works the plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation.

And the plaintiff claims $5000.00 damages”.

2 The Defendant pleaded –

• (a) that he never spoke or published the said words as set out in paragraph 2 (in inverted comas) of the Particulars of Claim or at all;

• (b) that he did not mean and was not understood to mean what is alleged in paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim at all, and that the said words are incapable of any of the alleged meanings or of any other defamatory or actionable meaning;

• (c) that on the first day of June, 1966 he was reporting to his constituency on a matter of public interest, and that if he used the words or any of the words as set out in paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim (which is denied) they are a fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public interest.

• (d) that the Plaintiff is not qualified for the post of Building Inspector;

• (e) that the Plaintiff has not been injured in his credit or reputation at all;

• (f) that if in the course of his report to his constituency he spoke any of the words set out in paragraph 2 (in inverted commas) of the Particulars of Claim; he did so in the bona fide discharge of his duty as a Member of the Legislative Council and without any malice towards the Plaintiff and in the honest belief that what he said was true, and the said words were published to members of his constituency who had a corresponding interest and duty in the matter; and that the occasion was therefore privileged. The defendant also denies each and every allegation of fact in the Statement of Claim and especially in the Particulars of Claim appearing as if the same were set out in the Defence and traversed seriatim.

3 The Plaintiff said in evidence that in 1963 he ran for membership of the Legislative Council for East End, Long Look District, Tortola, but was defeated at that election by the Defendant, who is still the member for that area. The Plaintiff said that he retired from politics entirely since then and took up employment as Building Inspector with the Government of the British Virgin Islands.

4 According to the Plaintiff, he heard something on the night of 31 ^st May, 1966 and as a result he went to East End on the 1 ^st June 1966 where the defendant had a public lecture. The Plaintiff said that the Defendant began his lecture and that after some time “he made a certain stop in the lecture and began to say “Ladies and Gentlemen, this is something that concerns all of us — this unqualified Building Inspector. Three men applied for this job, namely Mr. Antonio Maduro who is a building contractor, also...