Elwardo G. Lynch Appellant/1st Defendant v Ralph Gonsalves Respondent/Claimant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: EDWARDS J.A.,Justice of Appeal,Ola Mae Edwards,Janice M. Pereira,Frederick Bruce-Lyle,Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] ECSC J0621-2
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Vincent)
• Docket Number: HCVAP 2009/002
• Date: 21 June 2011

[2011] ECSC J0621-2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Ola Mae Edwards Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mde. Janice M. Pereira Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr.Frederick Bruce-Lyle Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

HCVAP 2009/002

Consolidated With HCVAP 2009/004

Between:

Elwardo G. Lynch

Appellant/1st Defendant

and

Ralph Gonsalves

Respondent/Claimant

Between:

BDS Limited

Appellant/2nd Defendant

and

Ralph Gonsalves

Respondent/Claimant

Civil Appeal — Slander and Defamation — Assesment of Damages — Proving general damages and aggravated damages — Legal considerations in awarding damages -Mitigating damages — Adducing evidence to disprove malicious motive — Admissibility of evidence concerning context in which defamatory publication was made — Relevance of comparative awards of damages within OECS jurisdiction — Extent of publication — Effect of slander on reputation of claimant — Reduction of global award — Nature of liability for joint tortfeasors — Court of Appeal award of costs apportioned incorrectly — Error in awarding interest on interest

On 14^th August 2002, the 1^st appellant Mr. Elwardo Lynch, hosted the political radio programme "New Times" which is sponsored by the opposition New Democratic Party on Nice Radio 96.7 FM radio station owned by the 2^nd appellant BDS Limited. Mr. Lynch published certain defamatory words about the respondent Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, who was then and still is the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The defamatory statements alleged that the respondent allowed money from the State's consolidated fund to be used in the purchasing of tickets for his mother and daughter to travel to Rome to see the Pope. The respondent filed a claim against the appellants alleging among other things that the appellants' slanderous statements meant that the respondent was corrupt and that in his capacity as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance he caused public funds to be used to pay the tickets and thereby had committed the criminal offences of misconduct in public office, obtaining services by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and false accounting.

The appellants by their defences, sought to put the respondent to prove publication of the defamatory statements and pleaded that the statements lacked the alleged defamatory meanings and that it was fair comment on a matter of public interest and qualified privilege. Thom J held that the appellants had no prospect of succeeding on any of the defences and struck them out. Summary judgment was entered against the appellants with damages to be assessed. Mr. Lynch appealed Thom J's ruling and on the 18^th September 2006 it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal with prescribed costs to await the assessment of damages to be quantified. The master assessed the damages for slander and on 26^th November 2008 ordered:

• (a) each Defendant do pay the Claimant assessed damages in the sum of $160,000.00

• (b) each Defendant do pay the Claimant costs in the High Court in the sum of $33,000.00

• (c) each Defendant do pay the Claimant costs in the Court of Appeal assessed in the sum of $22,000.00

• (d) interest of 3% be paid on the total sum of $160,000.00 from the service of the writ to the 25^th May 2005 when judgment was delivered and thereafter interest be paid on the total judgment sum of $215,000.00 at the statutory rate of 5% until liquidated.

The appellants challenged this decision of the learned master on several grounds; contending that the master had mischaracterized the mitigation evidence adduced by the appellants for the assessment, erroneously treated it as inadmissible, awarded unreasonable and excessive damages to the respondent; and had erred in apportioning costs, and awarding interest.

Held: allowing the appeals to the extent that the order of the master is set aside and the following order is substituted:

• (a) The appellants jointly and severally do pay the respondent assessed damages in the sum of $140,000.00 and prescribed costs of $30,000.00 on the claim.

• (b) The appellant Elwardo Lynch do pay the respondent Ralph E. Gonsalves costs in the Court of Appeal pursuant to the order on the 18^th September 2006 in the sum of $20,000.00

• (c) The appellants do pay interest on the judgment debt at the statutory rate of 5% from the date of assessment 26^th November 2008 until full and final payment.

• (d) There be no order made as to costs in these appeals.

• 1. The learned master failed to consider whether the appellants by their witness statements and submissions had mitigated the damages; and should have at least acknowledged that the damages could be mitigated by the appellants, and then pronounce on whether the evidence before her was of persuasive value for the purposes of mitigating the damages to be awarded. In considering whether the evidence and submissions of the appellants' counsel demonstrate that the appellants published the statement without deliberate malice the master would be entitled to draw inferences from the language of the slanderous statement itself and the circumstances surrounding the publication of the comment.

• 2. None of the evidence in the witness statements of Mr. Elwardo Lynch and the Chief Executive Officer of BDS Limited Mr. Douglas De Freitas, disproves actual malice, or negatives the existence of any malicious motive on their part. The marginal relevance of the contextual background evidence strongly confirms the true political basis for the slanderous statements that were falsely and maliciously published by the appellants. Had the master considered the mitigation value of the appellants' evidence and submissions she would have been entitled to find that the appellants had not disproved that they acted with actual malice which resulted in increased mental distress to the respondent.

  Simpson v Robinson 12 Q.B.D. 541 (1841) 12 Q.B.D. 541 ; Pearson v Lemaitre (1843) 5 M&G 700 at page 19; Gatley on Libel and Slander (10^th Edition) at pages 1014 to 1015; and Keith Burnstein v Imes Newspaper Ltd. Case No. A2/2002/0510 Royal Courts of Justice (Unreported Judgment) 20/12/2000 applied.

• 3. The errors that were made by the master concerning the extent of the publication and the effect of the slander on the reputation of the respondent must register in a reduction of the amount awarded for injury to the respondent's reputation. Though the sum awarded for injury to reputation was not stated, allowing 30% of the global award as the sum for injury to reputation, the court will reduce that sum by $20,000.00. There is no reason to interfere with the rest of the master's award even where it may appear that she has lifted the bar. The global award is therefore reduced to $140,000.00.

• 4. The master erred in awarding interest upon interest at paragraph (d) of her order; and in making separate awards for each of the appellants at paragraphs (a) and (b) of her order. The respondent is entitled to receive a sum representing the damage that he has suffered from a single wrong inflicted by both appellants as joint tortfeasors. The award of $140,000.00 for general damages including aggravated damages to the respondent is to be paid by both appellants.

  Greenlands v Wilhurst [1913] 3 K.B. 531 : Per Lord Hamilton applied.

• 5. That although the appellants were successful in their appeals no order as to costs would be made because of the conduct of the appellants both before and during the litigation proceedings. The appellants were unreasonable in raising the defences that were struck out and the respondent has succeeded on the claim though not succeeding in this appeal.

EDWARDS J.A.

1 These two consolidated appeals challenge the decision of the learned master delivered on 26^th November 2008 in which she assessed the damages arising from the respondent's claim for slander as follows:

"… It is hereby ordered that

• (a) each Defendant do pay the Claimant assessed damages in the sum of $160,000.00

• (b) each Defendant do pay the Claimant costs in the High Court in the sum of $33,000.00

• (c) each Defendant do pay the Claimant costs in the Court of Appeal in the sum of $22,000.00

• (d) interest of 3% be paid on the total sum of $160,000.00 from the service of the writ to the 25^th May 2005 when judgment was delivered and thereafter interest be paid on the total judgment sum of $215,000 at the statutory rate of 5% until liquidated."

The Facts Leading to the Assessment

2 On 14^th August 2002, the appellant Mr. Lynch, hosted a political radio programme "New Times" sponsored by the opposition New Democratic Party on Nice Radio 96.7 FM radio station owned by the appellant BDS Limited. During the broadcast, Mr. Lynch published false and malicious statements about the respondent Dr. Gonsalves who was then (and still is) the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The slanderous/defamatory statements in their natural and ordinary meaning alleged in essence that the respondent caused money from the State's consolidated fund to be used to purchase airline tickets for his mother and daughter to travel to Rome to see the Pope. Two claims for slander were brought against both appellants and another person as joint tortfeasors. The claims alleged among other things that the slanderous words meant that the respondent was corrupt and that in his capacity as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance he caused public funds to be used to pay the airline tickets and thereby had committed the criminal offences of misconduct in public office, obtaining services by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and false accounting which were offences punishable by imprisonment under the Criminal Code.

3 On 31^st October 2002 Alleyne J (as he then was) ruled that except for two of the meanings alleged in each statement of claim, the words in their ordinary and natural meaning were capable...