Earl Huntley Claimant v (1) Rick Wayne (2)star Publishing Company (1987) Ltd Defendants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | WILKINSON J |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2012 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2012] ECSC J0131-1 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | Claim NO: SLUHCV 2005/0543 |
| Date | 31 January 2012 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Claim NO: SLUHCV 2005/0543
The Claimant filed his claim form and statement of claim on August 2nd 2005, and therein he sought the following relief:
-
(i) An injunction to restrain the Defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the Claimant.
-
(ii) Damages.
-
(iii) Interest thereon at such rate as the Honourable Court shall deem fit.
-
(iv) Such further or other relief that the Court deems fit.
-
(v) Costs.
The statement of claim as amended on January 23rd 2006, did not change the relief sought. It alleged that the Claimant was a former Ambassador for Saint Lucia to the United Nations for the period September 14th 2001, to September 13th 2003, and the Ambassador for Saint Lucia to the Caribbean Community for the period September 14th 2003, to September 13th 2004.
It was alleged that the Second Defendant operated a business web-site athttp://www.stluciastar.com/ with a link thereon to a discussion board at http://www.tropicaltraveller.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimate bb.cgi?ubb=gettopic,f=1:t=003193 and the First Defendant was the administrator of the discussion board.
The Claimant alleged that a statement published on the discussion board on August 3rd 2004, at 10.55 p.m. by a person using the pseudonym or avatar "Boss Hoss" was defamatory. He further alleged that the statement was understood to mean him as he was identifiable as the person referred by name and office. He also alleged that a large but unquantifiable number of readers had read the statement.
He said that in their natural and ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean:
-
(a) that the Claimant is guilty of receiving a bribe;
-
(b) that the Claimant is guilty of corruption;
-
(c) that the Claimant is a thief;
-
(d) that the Claimant is guilty of a serious criminal offence punishable by imprisonment in the island of Saint Lucia;
-
(e) that the Claimant is guilty of dishonesty in the discharge of his office as Ambassador for Saint Lucia, and/or
-
(f) that the Claimant was unfit to hold the office of Ambassador for Saint Lucia.
Further in the alternative, by way of innuendo, the words meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had committed an act of corruption in the discharge of the duties of his office, or had committed some corrupt or other fraudulent or dishonest act in connection with a person called Barlett who paid theClaimant a bribe with which the Claimant purchased a Jaguar motor-car. The Claimant set out the particulars on which he relied.
-
(a) the Claimant repeated paragraph 1 of the statement of claim and relied on the fact the words "kick back" in the context in which they were published in relation to the Claimant imports that the Claimant is corrupt or a person involved in corruption in the discharge of the duties of his office, and/or is involved with a corrupt person called Bartlett who paid the Claimant a bribe in pursuance of a secret agreement entered into between them in New York.
-
(b) The Claimant relies on the fact that the slang and/or Creole words "bobol", "bobolist", "kick back" and "voleur" import that the Claimant is corrupt or involved in corruption and/or is involved with a corrupt person who paid him a bribe and/or that he is a thief.
-
(c) The Claimant invites the court to infer that the readers of the words, in particular the Saint Lucian readers, are familiar with the said meanings of the words "bobol", "bobolist", "kick back", and "voleur" and understood the words complained of.
By reason of the publication of the words the Claimant alleged that he had been seriously injured in his character, credit, reputation and in the way of his office as Ambassador for Saint Lucia. He had also been brought into doubt, public scandal, odium and contempt.
The Defendants in their joint defence signed by the First Defendant and Mae Wayne as managing director of the Second Defendant set out several defences. Firstly, they denied that they published or caused to be published or participated in the publication of the words complained of, secondly they said that if there was publication then pursuant to section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 (England) they were not responsible; thirdly, if the words were found to be have been published they did so innocently not knowing or having grounds to suspect that the posting was defamatory; fourthly, they denied that the words bore the meanings attributed to them; fifthly, even if the words were defamatory then they were protected as being fair comment, and sixthly, the words were protected by qualified privilege.Particulars were provided to support the pleadings of fair comment and qualified privilege.
The Defendants' denied the allegation of injury to the reputation of the Claimant in the way of his office and that they either threatened or intended further publication of the words.
The Claimant was a public servant who worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs holding varoius posts from 1979 to 2004 and towards the later part of his service he was Ambassador for Saint Lucia to the United Nations at New York for the period September 14th 2001, to September 13th 2003 and thereafter the Ambassador for Saint Lucia to the Caribbean Community for the period September 14th 2003, to September 13th 2004.
By an indenture dated September 24th 1982, the Helenites Association of St. Lucia (hereinafter "the Association") purchased from YOUNG ISRAEL OF RUBY INC., a portion of land together with a building thereon (hereinafter "the Helenites Building") at 438 East 49th Street, Brooklyn, New York for fifty four thousand United States dollars (US$54,000.00) and also entered into a mortgage arrangement with YOUNG ISRAEL OF RUBY INC. for the sum of thirty four thousand United States dollars (US$34,000.00). By various social and other activities, the Association raised funds to make payments against the mortgage.
At 1990 an assessment was carried out on the Helenites Building by the City of New York, its classification changed and it was found to be in arrears of taxes for the period 1982 to 2000. Whereas the Helenites Building was purchased for fifty four thousand United States dollars (US$54,000.00), on assessment the building was valued at forty five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) and the land at sixty seven thousand United States dollars (US$67,000.00). The Association had difficulty meeting the taxes assessed through its activities and there was initially a plan to sell the Helenites Building and then there was expressed the sentiment that therewas a need to retain the Helenites Building for the benefit of the Saint Lucian community at New York. The Government of Saint Lucia paid off the tax arrears.
By an indenture dated December 3rd 1999, the Association transferred ownership of the Helenites Building to the Government of Saint Lucia.
Taxes went into arrears once again for approximately thirty one thousand United States dollars (US$31,000.00) and this was paid by a debt collector who acquired a lien on the Helenites Building and he threatened foreclosure.
The Claimant entered into a transaction with Mr. Michael Bartlett to raise funds to avoid the threatened foreclosure. The transaction between the Claimant and Mr. Bartlett generated public discussion.
On August 3rd 2004, between 9.00 a.m. -10.00 a.m. the Claimant held a press conference and said:
"Over the last few weeks in the chat room of the Star Newspaper, there have been wild allegations and false statement with regard to a property known as the Helenites Centre in Brooklyn…in the host of the DBS TV Programme, Talk, as well as the Star Newspaper of Friday July 30th 2004 making allegations of a major scandal surrounding that property; and in the Mirror Newspaper also of Friday July 30th calling on the Government to explain the situation…A member of one of the Association of the Council, Mr. Michael Bartlett of Helenites who had had a long association with the building, then offered to raise a loan to pay the lien and repair the building for rental, with the proceeds from the rental of the building going to repay the loan. This would involve transferring the title of the property to him so that the loan could be raised on the property. I agreed to do this on the clear understanding that it would be a temporary transfer and that the Government of St. Lucia would continue to remain the legitimate owner of the property. There is therefore a signed agreement attesting that the transfer of title to the property is a temporary arrangement that this arrangement was entered into to facilitate a mortgage on the property undertaken by Michael Bartlett and that the loan was to be used for the Centre in the manner I have already outlined, that the title would be transferred back to Government once the loan was repaid, and that the Centre was responsible for the loan repayments… Unfortunately the advances in modern technology — specifically internet chat-room — have only given them another stage to perpetuate this deplorable attitude on a larger scale than a small island. While they hide behind the anonymity of an internet chat room, the owners of such chat rooms should be aware that the anonymity of their participants does not absolve these owners as well as the internet service providers from responsibility from libelous and slanderous statements made in these chat rooms".
On the same day, August 3rd 2004, at 10.55 p.m. there was posted on the discussion board found at http//www.tropicaltraveller.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=gettopic;f=1 the...
To continue reading
Request your trial