Delves v Coombs et Al
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Glasgow, M. |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | VC 2017 HC 29 |
| Docket Number | SVGHCV 2016/0026 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Date | 27 March 2017 |
High Court
Glasgow, M.
SVGHCV 2016/0026
Mr. Grahame Boilers for the claimant.
Mr. Andreas Coombs for the 1st defendant Ms. Keisal Peters for the 2nd defendant.
Civil Practice and Procedure - Pleadings — Natural and ordinary meaning — Defamation — Whether words published bore out the meanings set out in statement of claim or some other meaning — Whether claim ought to be amended
The claimant and the first defendant in this claim are prominent citizens and football officials on the island of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Mr. Joseph Delves (“Mr. Delves”) is a respected legal practitioner of some 25 years' experience at the local bar. He has served in the recent past (2007-2011) as the president of the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Football Federation (“SVGFF”). The first defendant, Mr. Venold Coombs (“Mr. Coombs”) is now serving as the immediate successor to Mr. Delves as the president of the SVGFF having been elected to that office in 2011.
The second defendant is a local company and the publisher of “the News” newspaper (“the News”). The News is a locally distributed publication which is also available in the Caribbean, the United Kingdom and the United States and to readers all over the world via the World Wide Web.
The parties are odds over words allegedly uttered by Mr. Coombs and published in the 18 th September 2015 issue of the News under the caption “Coombs: Delves needs to explain $400,000”. The article reads,
President of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Football Federation, SVGFF, Venold Coombs wants former SVGFF President, Joseph Delves, to explain how over $400,000 of what he says is “football money” ended up in the coffers of the Caribbean Money Market Brokers, CMMB, with no benefits to the SVGFF.
“Under Delves administration over $400,000 went down to Trinidad to the CMMB. Football sent the money down there and the information is very interesting and Delves needs to come and tell the people,” Coombs told The News in an exclusive interview on Wednesday 8th September.
Coombs said that after his executive took office he became aware of the money being sent to Trinidad, following questions from Fifa (sic) as to how the money got to CMMB.
“I did some investigations but I think that former president Delves needs to explain, Coombs stated, but when pressed further as to if the SVGFF benefits from such “investments” he stated: all I can say is that Delves needs to explain.”
When contacted for a response, Delves did admit that money was sent to CMMB and that this was done with the understanding and knowledge of the members of his executive at the time.
He also expressed surprise that Coombs only became aware of the transaction by way of Fifa (sic), stating that audited statements of the SVGFF would have shown the money transfer.
Delves however, stated that he was not the person responsible for the SVGFF's finances at the time and referred The News to the former financial officer, Ashley Caine.
The News made several efforts to contact Caine but was unable to do so.
Delves said the way he conducted the affairs of football during his stint at the helm, was different from that of Coombs.
He stated that all officers had their responsibilities, which he did not interfere with, stating that he did not want to make comments on the financial matter with CMMB, since Caine would have been the officer intimately involved with the transaction.
Mr. Delves is not pleased with the contents of the article. On February 12, 2016 he filed this claim against Mr. Coombs and the News for damages for allegedly defaming him and an injunction to prevent them from saying or publishing the same or similar words.
Mr. Delves claims that he has been defamed since the words in the article, in their natural and ordinary and/or inferential meaning(s) can be understood to say that he has
-
(1) Stolen or defrauded and/ or committed or conspired with others to commit the criminal offence of theft of the sum of $400,000.00, being the property of the SVGFF, which theft is an offence punishable by imprisonment under the Criminal Code (“the first meaning');
-
(2) Abused his position as president of the SVGFF by conspiring with others to misappropriate $400,000.00 of SVGFF funds by depositing the same or causing same to be deposited into an account at Caribbean Money Markets Brokers in Trinidad with no benefit to the SVGFF (‘the second meaning”);
Mr. Coombs and the News filed separate defences on 16th March 2016 and 18th March, 2016 (amended defence) respectively. Mr. Delves thereafter on 9th June 2016 filed this application in which he has asked the court for an order that the natural and ordinary meanings of the words complained of in the statement of claim are capable of bearing the meaning(s) attributed to them in the statement of claim. He has also asked for permission to file replies to the defences outside of the time set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (“the CPR”). The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Delves on 9th June 2016 and filed on the same day. The application is the subject of this ruling.
Quite unsurprisingly, Mr. Coombs and the News filed responses to the application in which they oppose the request that the court finds that the natural and ordinary meanings of the words complained of in the statement of claim are capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them in the statement of claim. On the contrary, they proposed to demonstrate that the words do not bear the pleaded meanings. Both defendants have not opposed Mr. Delves' request for an extension of the time to file his reply to their defences.
The questions to be asked on this application are — (1) what do the words set out in the statement of claim mean in their ordinary and natural sense?(2) Do they bear out the meanings set out in the statement of claim or do they bear some other meaning?
Mr. Delves' arguments are fairly straight forward. His view is that the words of the article are “statements of facts and are accusatorial [Mr. Delves' submissions filed on 11 th November 2016 at para. 10]. Mr. Delves complains that the impropriety alleged by the defendants are borne out by:
-
(1) insinuations that $400,000.00 is not in the accounts of SVGFF. “Football money” in inverted commas is said to be missing;
-
(2) the use of the words “with no benefits to the SVGFF” as well as [ibid at para. 11]
Under the Delves administration over $400,000.00 went down to Trinidad to CMMB. Football sent the money down there and the information is very interesting and Delves needs to come and tell the people.
(3) The use of the words “I did some investigations but I think former president Delves needs to explain' [ibid at para. 12]'; “when pressed further as to if the SVGFF benefits from such investments he stated all I can say is that Delves needs to explain.” [ibid]
(4) Linking the word investments in quotes to “football money” which the SVGFF had no knowledge of and from which they derived no benefits. This approach, it is argued, suggests to an ordinary, reasonable, fair minded reader that the funds were misappropriated by Mr. Delves.
All in all, Delves' position is that: [Supra, note at para. 14]
… the ordinary reasonable man reading this article would undoubtedly form the view that the Applicant, as President of the Football Federation, sent money to an institution in Trinidad, secretly and for his personal use. The meanings pleadings by the claimant are not strained meanings… the natural and ordinary meanings pleaded … are well within the range of meanings of which the words complained of are reasonably capable of meaning. The claimant further submits that the words complained of clearly accuse him of criminal misconduct.
The court is asked to consider CPR 69.4, the cases of Dr. Ralph E. Gonsalves v. Edwardo Lynch and BDS Limited SVGHCV 2002/0405 & 0406 and Jameel v. Times Newspaper Limited [2003] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1694. In Gonsalves v. Lynch [SVGHCV 2002/0405&0406 at para. 6], Alleyne, J., quoting from Skuse v. Granada Television Limited [1996] E.M.L.R. 278, recited the following approach to be taken to the question of meaning:
- The court should give to the material complained of the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable person watching the programme once…. 2. The hypothetical reasonable reader (or viewer) is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer, and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking. But he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. 3. While limiting its attention to what the defendant has actually said or written, the court should be cautious of an over-elaborate analysis of the material in issue. 4. The court should not be too liberal in its approach. 5. A statement should be taken to be defamatory if it would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally. 6. In determining the meaning of the material complained of the court is not limited by the meanings which either the plaintiff or the defendant seeks to place upon the words. 7. The defamatory meaning pleaded by the plaintiff is treated as the most injurious meaning the words are capable of bearing and the questions a judge sitting alone has to ask himself are, first, is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words that which is alleged in the statement of claim and secondly, if not, what (if any) less injurious...
To continue reading
Request your trial