PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2019 >> [2019] WSSC 77

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Oeti v Samoa Observer [2019] WSSC 77 (30 August 2019)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Oeti & Anor v Samoa Observer [2019] WSSC 77


Case name:
Oeti & Anor v Samoa Observer


Citation:


Decision date:
30 August 2019


Parties:
OPAPO SOANAI OETI, of Vaitele, Apia (First Plaintiff) & TOAIPUAPUAGA PATRICK, of Vaitele (Second Plaintiff) AND SAMOA OBSERVER COMPANY (APIA) LIMITED a duly incorporated company having its place of business at Apia (Defendant)


Hearing date(s):
01 March 2019


File number(s):
C49/17


Jurisdiction:
CIVIL


Place of delivery:
Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Justice Mata Keli Tuatagaloa


On appeal from:


Order:
In summary, I find as follows:
(i) That certain statements or words (paragraph 35) in their ordinary and natural meanings were understood to be defamatory;
(ii) That certain statements or words (paragraph 55) in their natural and ordinary meanings were understood to convey meanings (innuendos) that are defamatory; and
(iii) The defence of fair comment has not been made out.
There now remains the issue of damages and costs.


Representation:
M. Lui for Plaintiffs
H. Wallwork for Defendant


Catchwords:
newspaper publication – letter to the Editor – defamation claim – O le Palemia blog – defamatory statements – statements ordinary meaning – statements innuendo meaning – fair comment.


Words and phrases:


Legislation cited:
Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa, Article 19(1)(a);
Defamation Act 1993, s. 10;
Defamation Act 1992 (NZ), s. 10(2).


Cases cited:
A v Ipec Australia Ltd & Crew [1973] VicRp 4; [1973] VR 39; see also Christchurch Press Co. Ltd v McGaveston [1985] NZCA 108; [1986] 1 NZLR 610 (CA);
Chernesky v Armadale Publishers Ltd [1979] 1 SCR 1067, 1978 CanLII 20 (SCC);
Hulton & Co Ltd v Jones [1909] UKLawRpAC 57; [1910] AC 20;
Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, 259 per Lord Reid (HL);
Lyon v The Daily Telegraph Ltd [1943] K.B. 746, at p.752;
Malifa v Sapolu [1999] WSSC 47 (30 March 1999);
Mauli v University of the South Pacific [2007] WSSC 23 (5 April 2007);
Merrivale v Carson [1887] UKLawRpKQB 202; (1887) 20 Q.B.D. 275 (CA) per lord Esher at p.281;
Mirror Newspaper Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd [1986] FCA 300; (1986) 12 FCR 510;
Parmiter v Coupland [1840] EngR 168; (1840) 151 ER 340;
Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Industrial Society Ltd v Traders’Publishing Association Ltd [1906] UKLawRpKQB 13; [1906] 1 K.B. 403;
Ponifasio v Apia Broadcasting [2011] WSSC 136, paras [26 – 28];
Silking v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd (1958) 2 All ER 516; Silking v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 743, 748 – 749 per Diplock J
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237;
Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, 172 (CA);
Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] UKHL 2; [1992] 2 AC 343 (HL);
The Law of Torts in New Zealand 4th edition by Stephen Todd, Hughes Burrows, Smillie Hawes Beck, Brookers Ltd, 2005, paragraph [17.2] at p.652;
White & Co v Credit Reform Association and Credit Index Ltd [1905] UKLawRpKQB 52; [1905] 1 K.B. 653;
WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson [2008] S.C.J No.41; WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson [2008] 2 SCR 420, 2008 SCC 40
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer (1934) 50 TLR 581.


Summary of decision:

CP 49/17


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU


BETWEEN:


OPAPO SOANAI OETI, of Vaitele, Apia


First Plaintiff


AND:


TOAIPUAPUAGA PATRICK, of Vaitele


Second Plaintiff


AND:


SAMOA OBSERVER COMPANY (APIA) LIMITED a duly incorporated company having its place of business at Apia


Defendant


Counsels: M. Lui for Plaintiffs
H. Wallwork for Defendant
Hearing: 01 March 2019
Submissions: 20 March 2019
Judgment: 30 August 2019


JUDGMENT OF TUATAGALOA J

I must say that I find this area of the law of torts not easy and very technical to deal with and especially so when one is not conversant with this area of the law.

The parties

  1. The first plaintiff was a religious minister for the Congregational Christian Church of Samoa (“CCCS”) or Ekalesia Faapotopotoga Kerisiano Samoa (“EFKS”).
  2. The second plaintiff is his daughter who in 2017 experienced stigmata.
  3. The defendant is the company who owns the Samoa Observer Newspaper that published a letter on 29 March 2017 titled, “Stop this Madness: Church Stigmata row deepens,” penned by a person under the initials ‘M.R.’

The claim

  1. The plaintiffs’ claim relates to an article published by an anonymous blogger on the “O le Palemia” blog (widely known as ‘OLP’). The plaintiffs’ say that the exact same article was published by the defendant on 29 March 2017.

The letter

  1. The words complained of are contained in the letter published in full by the Samoa Observer as follows:
  2. The underlined words and/or statements the plaintiffs plead are defamatory.

The plaintiffs’ case

  1. On 26 March 2017 OLP published an article titled, “The Antichrist in Samoa,” immediately followed by another article, “Stigmata and incest with the father,” published on 27 March. The plaintiffs’ claim that the article published by OLP on 26 March 2017 is the exact same article published by the defendant on 29 March 2017. Both letters were penned by a person under the alias “M.R.”
  2. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant as publisher, even if not the author of the article or letter, is liable either jointly with the author or independently of the defamatory statements.[1] Furthermore, the defendant did not seek any comment from the plaintiffs prior to publishing the article or letter on 29 March 2017.
  3. The plaintiffs’ plead that certain statements or words are not only defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning but also when read together with the articles or blogs on OLP of 26th and 27th March 2017 also conveyed innuendos that are understood to be defamatory.[2]
  4. The following words in their natural and ordinary meanings say:
  5. The plaintiffs plead that these words in their natural and ordinary meanings are also understood to convey the following innuendos which are defamatory:

The defendant’s case

  1. The defendant pleads that the words complained of were published in good faith, without malice and are not defamatory of the plaintiffs either in their plain and ordinary meaning or by innuendo and are not understood to bear and are not capable of bearing the meanings alleged in paragraphs 6(a) – (i) of the Statement of Claim.
  2. The defendant says that the comments must be read in the context of the letter as a whole to get the true meaning or picture of what the author is talking about but not taken or read in isolation as individual sentences.
  3. The defendant pleads that:

Legal principles relevant to the defamation claim

  1. Whether the words in the communication are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning is a matter of construction to be interpreted objectively under the circumstances and in the context in which the communication is made. The plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the following:[4]
  2. The legal principles relevant to a defamation claim is well settled that a defamation includes:[5]
  3. The test is, what would the objective ordinary or reasonable person understand the matter complained of to mean? This is an ordinary person, “with ordinary general knowledge, not an unusually suspicious or unusually naive person.....who lives in an ivory tower...”[10]

Discussion/Analysis

  1. In Samoa defamation cases are tried by Judge alone unlike in England, Australia and New Zealand where defamation cases are tried before a jury. My task therefore is to decide whether or not the words complained of in their natural and ordinary meanings are defamatory; or if they are reasonably capable of bearing the meaning defamatory of the plaintiffs as alleged. If so, whether they did in fact bear such meaning.[11]
  2. Defamation protects every person from harm to their reputation by false and derogatory remarks about their person. It is, essential that the defamatory statement be published to a third person. Publication of the statement is the actionable wrong. [12]
  3. Both counsels agree that:
  4. The question of whether a comment is one on a matter of public interest must be clearly distinguished from the question of whether it is defamatory. The statements here may well be defamatory but even if it is defamatory, it is not actionable if the person publishing the statement has a good defence such as fair comment.
  5. As I understand in the pleadings and submissions of counsel for the Plaintiffs, Counsel contends that the words or statements pleaded in their natural and ordinary meanings are defamatory and/or those words in their natural and ordinary meaning would be understood to convey innuendos that are defamatory.
  6. There are in fact two kinds of meaning that can be pleaded by a claimant or plaintiff. The first is what is known as the “natura ordinary̶” meaning ofwords and secondlcondly is innuendo meaning.
  7. In determining whether a statement is defamatory,tory, the court can look at the statement’s ordinary and innuendo meaning. The ordinary meaning of a statement is how a person with only general knowledge would have understood the statement. The innuendo meaning is how only a person with special knowledge of certain facts or meanings would have understood the statement.
  8. I will approach the issue of defamation as follows:
  9. The test is whether the statements tend to lower the plaintiffs in the eyes of the right thinking members of society.
  10. Each case depends on its facts and on the impression the article or letter would make on a reasonable reader. The impugned words or publication must be considered as a whole including the circumstances in which the words are used.[13]

Are the words or statements pleaded by the plaintiffs in their natural and ordinary meaning defamatory?

  1. The natural and ordinary meaning of the words is the meaning given to it by ordinary readers and listeners. In ascertaining the natural and ordinary meaning of a statement, the actual intention of the publisher is irrelevant; what is relevant is what the publisher’s words conveyed, not what he or she intended to convey.[14] It is what they do convey to a reasonable reader or listener. Thus, witnesses cannot be called to give evidence of their understanding.
  2. The meaning must be gathered from the words themselves and in the context of the entire passage in which they are set out. The court is not confined to the literal or strict meaning of the words, but takes into account what the ordinary, reasonable person may reasonably infer from the words.[15]
  3. Well-known facts given media coverage may well constitute part of the common or general knowledge of ordinary men and women to which the court is required to take into account in deciding what the natural and ordinary meaning of the words are.
  4. The test of whether a statement is defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning is based on the objective reasonable man test (as opposed to innuendo), where the question turns on whether there are any extrinsic facts which are known to the ordinary reader such that he would put a meaning on the words that goes beyond the natural and ordinary meaning of the words; and if so, what such meaning might be and whether the meaning is defamatory.
  5. The following are implied from the statements or words in their natural and ordinary meanings as pleaded by the plaintiffs:
  6. The question is, can an objective ordinary person find the (above) words and statements in their natural and ordinary meanings to carry the meanings as pleaded by the plaintiffs? What the ordinary man infer from those words ords is to be regarded as part of their natura ordinary meaning&#16g and does equire the additiodition of an innuendo.
  9. I find on the balance of probabilities that those words or statements in paragraph 32 (i), (iv) and (v) in the context of the letter can be interpreted or taken by the objective ordinary reader in their natural and ordinary meanings to say or mean the things as pleaded. The reference to a DNA test to be carried clearly questions the paternity of the second plaintiff’s children. The statement, “He’s just as sick in the head as his daughter,” suggests that the plaintiffs are somewhat mentally impaired. Furthermore, the words, “This young woman Toa is a victim of being brainwashed from a young age,” associates with a dysfunctional relationship – that being the controlling nature of the first plaintiff and the vulnerability of the second plaintiff.
  10. However, I do not think that an ordinary person would reasonably find that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in paragraph 32 (ii) (above) in the context of the letter would point towards an elaborate plan by the plaintiffs to mislead the church leaders, political leaders and people of Samoa. That is (in my view) reading too much into the words.
  11. The principles or authorities have stated that innuendo is not necessary where the words complained of in their natund ordinary meaning&#16g are fou be defamatory. Howe However, I will nevertheless consider whether there are innuendos and , whether they are in fact defamatory in the event that I may be wrong.
  12. It is clear that when the letter in question was published by the Samoa Observer, the ‘stigmata’ issue had already been covered extensively by way of several writings and opinions already published by the Samoa Observer. It is not contested that prior to the letter being published by the Samoa Observer on 29 March 2017. OLP had written two blogs on this very subject matter on the 26th and 27th March 2017 as pleaded by the Plaintiffs.[16]

Are the words complained of in their natural and ordinary meaning capable of carrying the meanings or innuendos pleaded by the plaintiffs?

  1. Innuendo is where the words bear a further meaning because of the existence of extrinsic facts known only to a limited group of persons.[17]
  2. Unlike the situation where natural and ordinary meaning is in issue, evidence is admissible in the case of an innuendo to show the sense in which people to whom the words were published understood them. Extrinsic facts must be in existence at the time the statement was published.[18]
  3. The plaintiffs plead that the following statements or words taken in their natural and ordinary meanings were understood to mean (innuendos) that:[19]
  4. The plaintiffs plead that parts of what constituted defamation is that there was innuendo placed on it[20] which they say relies on some other facts that are known to a certain group of people. The plaintiffs contend that innuendo is established when people (members of the public) had read the letter or letters on OLP together with the article published by the defendant and come up with a meaning or an imputation that is defamatory regardless of whether the publisher of Samoa Observer knew of OLP or the letters being published on OLP. Innuendo (plaintiffs’ say) is established.
  5. Reverend Misiperetiso in his evidence said he heard about writings on OLP accusing the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff of incest and that the first plaintiff fathered the second plaintiff’s children so when he read the letter published by the Samoa Observer he knew it was referring to the allegations of incest. He said that this created gossip around the people he came across and was making a mockery of the first plaintiff which he believed led to the Church Council removing Reverend Opapo from his congregation.[21]
  6. The defendant through the evidence of its newspaper editor, Mataafa Keni Lesa says that the letter published was the opinion or comments of the writer “M.R.” The defendant says that the sting of the defamation claim by the plaintiffs is the “incestuous relationship” that is conveyed on the 27 March blog on OLP. The defendant contends that the article in Samoa Observer on 29 March makes no reference to any incestuous relationship and is different from the blog posted on OLP on 27 March. The letter of 27 March 2017 on OLP that is titled, “Stigmata and Incest with the Father,” contains allegations of incest between the plaintiffs.
  7. That may be so but without referring to the letters on OLP, the reference to DNA testing in that paragraph in its ordinary and natural meaning implies or questions the paternity of the second plaintiff’s children. The letter read together with the two letters on OLP does imply some incestuous relationship or something sinister between the first and second plaintiff.
  8. I find that the hypothetical ordinary person would find that the following paragraphs do carry the following innuendos:
  9. However, I still do not find the innuendos of an elaborate plan to mislead the Church; or that the actions of the first plaintiff or his daughter’s was an elaborate plan or a result of a vendetta against the Church could be derived if the letter is read in the context of what has been written and published on events that occurred between the first plaintiff and the EFKS Church Elders.
  10. Stigmata is mainly associated with the Catholic faith. The first plaintiff is a church minister of the Congregation Christian Church of Samoa or EFKS and the second plaintiff is his daughter. The second plaintiff having the signs of stigmata is the first of its kind in Samoa and with Samoa being a Christian nation the issue would nonetheless draw polarised views evident through various opinions, comments and articles on social media and also some being published by Samoa Observer.
  11. The first plaintiff was relieved of his pastoral duties by the EFKS in April 2017 citing disobedience. He in turn refuted the decision by EFKS calling it ‘undemocratic and unchristian’ in a press release carried by Talamua Newspaper.[22] Prior to being stripped of his Ministerial duties, the EFKS was reported to have informed the first plaintiff to remove the statues of Mary from inside the EFKS church where he was serving.
  12. The first plaintiff gave evidence and said that the letter published led to the EFKS Elders (Komiti a Toeaiina) stripping him of his pastoral duties in March 2018. As reported by the Samoa Observer in January 2017, there were already rumours that the first plaintiff could be stood down by the EFKS Elders Committee[23] which in February 2017 he was stood down or stripped of his pastoral role by the EFKS Elders Committee.[24] On 22 March 2017 the first plaintiff confirmed to Talamua Newspaper that he was giving up his pastoral duties following reports of his termination by EFKS.[25]
  13. I do not accept the evidence of the first plaintiff and that of Rev. Misiperetiso that the letter led to the first plaintiff being stripped of his pastoral duties. He was already stripped of his pastoral duties prior to the letter being published by the Samoa Observer.

Are the innuendos pleaded by the plaintiffs defamatory?

  1. The measure by which a word is considered defamatory or not is in accordance with the context in which they appear. There is authority to the effect that a plaintiff can sue in respect of a series of articles.[26] It may well be also that a newspaper could be successfully sued in respect of an article which is defamatory when read in the light of prior news items published or broadcast by other media. If such items can be regarded as part of the general knowledge of the community, they are arguably part of the context in which the latest contribution has been published.[27]
  2. It is not enough for the plaintiff to have been lowered in the eyes of a small group whose standards are not the standards of the wider community;[28] for example, gangs and the criminal underworld. The Plaintiffs must be lowered in the eyes of members of a respective segment of society. In this case the EFKS Elders Committee or Council is such group. However, the letter published by the Samoa Observer on 29th March 2017 cannot be said to be solely responsible for the first plaintiff being stood down or stripped of his pastoral duties. The first plaintiff was already stood down prior to the letter being published. The first plaintiff himself confirmed to Talamua Newspaper that he was giving up his pastoral duties following reports of his termination by EFKS.[29]
  3. Given what has been published and the personal acknowledgement by the first plaintiff to the media of him being stood down and his views of the decision by EFKS, I find the following words that the first plaintiff has a personal vendetta against the church may be a statement of fact or misstatement of fact or false statement but those words are not at all defamatory.
  4. However, I have no doubt that the following innuendos pleaded would lower the plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
  5. Statements where they are found to be defamatory do not preclude the operation of the fair comment defence. The defendant pleaded the defence of fair comment which is a complete defence to a claim of defamation.

Fair Comment

  1. The defence of fair comment applies only to the public dimension of the topics under discussion.
  2. In order for the defence to succeed the defendant must establish the following:
  3. The comment or opinion must be fair. Fair in this context means ‘honest’.
  4. A defendant pleading fair comment must prove affirmatively that the comment represented his own honest opinion. The objective test is, could any man however exaggerated or obstinate his views honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?[31]
  5. It has long been established that the state of mind of the publisher of the alleged libel is directly in issue where there is a plea of fair comment.[32] When publishing articles or letters, the publishers themselves must honestly hold the opinions expressed in the impugned letter. In the context of the present case this must mean honesty of belief in the opinions expressed in the letter complained of[33] and was not actuated by malice.
  6. The defendant had to firstly establish the defence of fair comment. Once the defence is established, the onus then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the decision by the defendant to publish the letter was actuated by malice.
  7. I will address first the issue raised by Counsel as to whether the defence of fair comment is available in Samoa to the news media in relation to publishing letters to the editor.

Is the defence of ‘fair comment’ available to the defendant as publisher of letters to the editor?

  1. The defence of ‘fair comment’ is available under the law.[35] Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution protects the right of every Samoan citizen to freedom of speech and expression. This right is restricted by Article 13(2) which refers to “reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
  2. There have been many judicial pronouncements on how vital to the functioning of a democratic society is the freedom to comment on matters of public interest. I refer to two cases:
  3. Authorities in different parts of the Commonwealth differed on this as highlighted in the following cases:
  4. New Zealand amended its Defamation Act 1992 (section 10(2)) to reflect the changes in the common law. The amendment provides the news media the defence of fair comment in relation to material submitted for publication by non-employees. The defendant must however, show that the opinion did not purport to be his own.
  5. Samoa needs to keep up with the rest of other jurisdictions and develop its jurisprudence to be at par with the others. Most importantly, the right to fair comment is an essential element of the right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution. The defence of fair comment is crucial in restoring the balance between free speech and freedom of the media on the one hand, and reputation on the other. The defence of ‘fair comment’ is available under the law[41] and in my view, to anyone including newspapers who publish materials submitted by non-employees.

Is the defence of fair comment made out?

  1. The defence of fair comment need only be considered in relation to the following that I have found to be defamatory:
Which words or statements are found in their natural and ordinary meanings and/or to convey the following meanings (innuendo):

Matter of public interest

  1. There is no doubt that the claim of stigmata is a matter of public interest. This is confirmed by the sheer volume of articles, opinions and letters published by the Samoa Observer, Talamua News, internationally by the BBC and on social media by way of OLP. The various publications portray polarising views of the public on the issue and claim of stigmata; including the conflicting views of the first plaintiff and the EFKS Church Elders.

Comment or opinion(or its mixture) must be based on a substratum of true facts [42]

  1. The defendant submitted that numerous publications and writings voicing different perspectives and views held by the public on the matter is the factual background to the letter published by the Samoa Observer. This (the defendant argues) meant that the letter published is the opinion of the writer based on factual background that had already been published.
  2. In the present case the state of mind of the defendant is established by the evidence of the editor of Samoa Observer Newspaper, Mataafa Keni Lesa, to the effect that he honestly held the opinion expressed in the letter as the writer’s opinion based on the issue of stigmata that had generated a lot of public interest.[43]
  3. The letter published by the Samoa Observer on 29th March was said to have been sent to its online service. Mataafa Keni Lesa says that the Samoa Observer takes responsibility for content that is published in the newspaper. When he came across this letter on the Samoa Observer online, he saw it was from M.R. whom he says always writes to the Samoa Observer on topical issues. Mataafa Keni Lesa at the time the letter by M.R. was published on 29th March 2017 was not aware of the two letters on OLP dated 26th and 27th March 2017. Mataafa Keni Lesa in his evidence said:
  4. What the defendant seemed to be saying is that the statements in the letter published are the opinions or comments of the writer based on what has already been written and made known to the public through the news medium and social media platforms; that is the factual background by which the comments in the letter published by the Samoa Observer on 29th March 2017 was based upon.
  5. I accept that various opinions, comments and letters provides the background to the letter but I cannot accept that what had already been written and published prior to the letter can be said to be true facts. That is, just because someone has written prior to the letter being published saying both plaintiffs are mentally impaired can be proof or a fact that they are actually mentally impaired.
  6. I do not find that the following statements or words are based on true facts:

Statement must be a comment or opinion and not a statement of fact.

  1. The comment must be understood by the reasonable reader as a comment rather than an imputation of fact.
  2. The plaintiffs say that the following are statements of fact and not comment:
  3. With all the controversy surrounding the claim of stigmata as reflected in media coverage, it distorts one’s perception and makes it difficult to see what is fact from what is opinion or comment. Nevertheless, I find the following to be statements of facts:

Comment or opinion must be fair

  1. The opinion must be genuine; an opinion that an honest minded person could make on the facts. The test is an objective one that asks if the comment made was one an honest person could make on the proven facts, however prejudiced, obstinate, or exaggerated his views may be.[44]
  2. In democratic societies freedom of speech and expression will prevail over the right to protection of reputation where the publication of seriously defamatory truth serves a public interest. Where no public interest is served by the publication, protection of reputation prevails. This is the case in Samoa as well. It is of fundamental importance in our democratic society to protect the good reputation of individuals.
  3. I find the comments in reference to a DNA test of the second plaintiffs’ children and to the plaintiffs being sick in the head as degrading and are unfair comments; such comments do not serve any public interest at all and are not based on any true facts.
  4. The fact that the plaintiffs did not plead any malice on the part of the defendant for the letter it published is a non-issue because the defence of fair comment has not been made out.

Conclusion

  1. In summary, I find as follows:
  2. There now remains the issue of damages and costs.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

[1] see Chernesky v Armadale Publishers Ltd [1979] 1 SCR 1067, 1978 CanLII 20 (SCC)

[2] Statement of Claim, paragraph [6], Particulars of Innuendos
[3] Refer to attachments annexed to the Affidavit of Mataafa Keni Lesa
[4] The Law of Torts in New Zealand 4th edition” by Stephen Todd, Hughes Burrows, Smillie Hawes Beck, Brookers Ltd, 2005, paragraph [17.2] at p.652
[5] Ibid at paragraph [17.3.01]; see also Ponifasio v Apia Broadcasting [2011] WSSC 136, paras [26 – 28]
[6] Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237
[7] Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer (1934) 50 TLR 581
[8] Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 151 ER 340
[9] Supra, at [7]
[10] Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, 259 per Lord Reid (HL)
[11] Mauli v University of the South Pacific [2007] WSSC 23 (5 April 2007)

[12] Silking v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd (1958) 2 All ER 516
[13] See: Mirror Newspaper Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 510
[14] Hulton & Co Ltd v Jones [1909] UKLawRpAC 57; [1910] AC 20;

[15] Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, 172 (CA)
[16] Affidavit of Opapo Soanai Oeti dated 15th Feb 2019, Annexures A & B
[17] Supra, at [10]
[18] Supra, at [5]
[19] Statement of Claim, para [6]
[20] Statement of Claim, paragraph 6(i) –(vii)
[21] See Affidavit of Reverend Misiperetiso
[22] Affidavit of Mataafa Keni Lesa, Attachment ‘Z’
[23] Affidavit of Mataafa Keni Lesa, Attachment ‘Y’
[24] Affidavit of Mataafa Keni Lesa, Attachment ‘Z’
[25] Affidavit of Mataafa Keni Lesa, Attachment ‘AA’
[26] A v Ipec Australia Ltd & Crew [1973] VicRp 4; [1973] VR 39; see also Christchurch Press Co. Ltd v McGaveston [1986] 1 NZLR 610 (CA)
[27] Supra, note [20]
[28] The Law of Torts in New Zealand, 4th edition, Brookers Ltd 2005.
[29] Affidavit of Mataafa Keni Lesa, Attachment ‘AA’
[30] Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345
[31] Merrivale v Carson [1887] UKLawRpKQB 202; (1887) 20 Q.B.D. 275 (CA) per lord Esher at p.281
[32] See: Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Industrial Society Ltd v Traders’Publishing Association Ltd [1906] UKLawRpKQB 13; [1906] 1 K.B. 403; White & Co v Credit Reform Association and Credit Index Ltd [1905] UKLawRpKQB 52; [1905] 1 K.B. 653
[33] Supra at [4] per Lord Denning at p.503; Silking v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 743, 748 – 749 per Diplock J
[34] Chernesky v Armadale Publishers Ltd [1979] 1 SCR 1067 per Ritchie J
[35] Defamation Act 1993, section 10
[36] Lyon v The Daily Telegraph Ltd [1943] K.B. 746 , at p.752
[37] Slim v The Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 Q.B. 157
[38] Chernesky v Armadale Publishers Ltd [1979] 1 SCR 1067
[39] WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson [2008] 2 SCR 420, 2008 SCC 40
[40] Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] UKHL 2; [1992] 2 AC 343 (HL)
[41] Supra, note[30]
[42] Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345

[43] Transcript, pp. [11 -12], [13-14]
[44] WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson [2008] S.C.J No.41

[45] Malifa v Sapolu [1999] WSSC 47 (30 March 1999)

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2019/77.html