IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC0031 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

JOHN MORRISION
of Nananu-i-Ra Island,
Rakiraki in Fiji, Company Director.
PLAINTIFF

AND:

VIOLET MOVICK
of Nananu-i-Ra Island, Rakiraki in Fiji, Company Director.
FIRST DEFENDANT

ROSEDALE LIMITED
a limited liability company
having its registered office at Office of G.H Whiteside and Company
211 Ratu Sukuna Road P O Box 13510 Suva in Fiji
trading as MOKUSIGA’S ISLAND RESORT
SECOND DEFENDANT

Mr Boseiwaqa and Ms Muir for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the Defendants

Date of Hearing: 5 October 2005
Date of Judgment: 14 October 2005

REASONS FOR ORAL JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

On 5 October 2005 I heard two witnesses give evidence in Formal Proof of the Plaintiff’s claim. Previously on 13 May 2005 Mr A. Patel sought and was granted leave to withdraw as Counsel for the First Defendant. Both Defendants had filed a joint statement of defence to the initial claim. The Second Defendant is the First Defendant’s limited liability company.

At the end of the hearing I gave judgment for the Plaintiff against both Defendants and said I would state my reasons later. These are my reasons.

From the evidence of the Plaintiff I am satisfied that statements were made, particularly a statutory declaration in writing (Exhibit P1) by the First Defendant on behalf of herself and the Second Defendant about hygiene and cleanliness at the Plaintiff’s property. I accept that the Plaintiff was in the business of establishing a tourist accommodation and intended to seek a boarding house licence. I am satisfied from the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witness Marika Masamila and the evidence of the Plaintiff that these statements had no foundation and were untrue, and were known to the First Defendant to be untrue. I refer particularly to Exhibits P1, P8 and P6. 

I am satisfied that the statements made caused a delay of 3 years in the granting of the licence and that in the meantime the Plaintiff lost his expected profits. I am also satisfied that the statements were noised abroad, presumably by the Ra Rural Local Authority to which the statements were made. The taxi drivers around Rakiraki and the Manager of the Rakiraki Hotel repeated these statements to the Plaintiff. 

I am satisfied the statements being untrue and without foundation did damage the reputation of the Plaintiff who has lived all his life in Fiji, was Chief Engineer at the Emperor Gold Mine and is known by a lot of people particularly in the North. I am sure he felt ashamed and angry and that his efforts had been to establish a boarding house that was clean and above average. It seems the Plaintiff is right in his remark that all the defendants (and another person who later apologized, see Exhibit P. 6) wanted to do was to stop him getting his licence. I am satisfied that during the delay of 3 years the Resorts operated by these other people particularly the present Defendants increased their clientele while that of the Plaintiff languished. 

For those reasons I found the Plaintiff’s claim of defamation and his entitlement to damages had been proved and I made the following orders:

(1)	Judgment for the Plaintiff in general damages against both Defendants jointly and severally for defamation in the sum of $10,000.00. This includes an element of aggravated damages expressing the disapproval of the Court for the consciously destructive acts of the Defendants against the interests of a business competitor.

(2)	An order in special damages against both Defendants jointly and severally in the sum of $116,835.00 for loss of profits during the 3 year period.

(3)	Other prayers in the claim are withdrawn by leave.

(4)	Full indemnity costs to the Plaintiff which I assess in the sum of $5,000.00 together with all costs and disbursements incurred in the conduct of this proceedings by the Plaintiff up to and including sealing of the final order as proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

In assessing general damages I had regard to Ports Terminal Ltd –v- Arun & Ors Civil Action No HBC0592 1999S, Judgment 29 November 2000. In that case with some similarities to the present one the Court awarded $15,000.00 in costs.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
14 October 2005