Blackburn v Alton (SCA 29 of 1994) [1996] SCCA 9 (31 January 1996)

IN _TIlESEYCHELLES _COURT ()F__APPEl\L DANIEL BLACKBURN APPELLANT HUBERT ALTON RESPONDENT Civil_Appeal No. 29 of 1994 Mr. Boulle for the appellant Mr. Geor~es for respondent The appeal arises out of a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a claim for damages for defamation. In by him the about him. to "allegations" his plaint appellant alleged that respondent in a and addressed to the State Assurance of Seychelles made false and malicious defamatory him and he claimed R.57,OOO. OO for loss and Appellant alleged that the letter and "innuendos" concerning appellant "appellant is incompetent and dishonest qualified to undertake Quantity Surveying works" and a Quantity Surveying be lot to a "State the said appellant to undertake Quantity say "there is to your been "professional letter ask Respondent In should Work." very ethics he his never I leave further leaves issued it to effect caused letter written Corporation statements damage contained to and "should Licence, desired." Assurance Surveying something imagination." never his fishy that have went here with and not on The letter was pleaded and in privilege a had matter common the and copied to to the the State addressed Licensing Assurance Authority. 'inter alia' that the words were true in and were published on an occasion of were they and interest in the publication of the words complained corresponding to whom parties and the fact Corporation Respondent substance qualified published subject of. Both Assurance a property and with also caused evaluate appellant insurance properties Corporation to claims. which had burnt down. respondent were employed by the in Respondent was asked to The owner of the by evaluated The valuation of appellant far exceeded that of The State Assurance asked for the comments of two valuations. which is the subject-matter of copied the letter to the Seychelles Authority - a body which issues licence to Quantity on wrote difference property in the letter also his the the big to be He State connection evaluate property appellant. respondent. respondent Respondent this Licensing Surveyors. case. failed in his judge to prove The learned letter were true in substance and fact. judge trial found that respondent had that the imputations made against appellant The learned the on malice there that was no also found - -2- part privilege" of respondent. he and dismissed the plaint. upheld the defence of "qualified The learned judge. in the event appellant would have succeeded, would have awarded: (a) (b) Ie) R.15,OOO for general and moral dama~es R.5.000 for loss of prospective R.7,OOO for pecuniary loss career. Appellant the estimated view it should be enhanced. is challenging qualified damages issue of the findings of the learned ,jud~e on finds the amount of of the learned judge inadequate and in his privilege and The person to duty qualified the or "qualified repeatedly to makes social the and interest had a Corporation Corporation the qualified. it is not also only privilege the issue liable in dama~es for I Licensing copied shows misused." qualified his his of is is only this issue before Court privilege" as pleaded by respondent. held that of It has been a privileged occasion is, in reference that the person who where privilege, communication interest or a duty (legal, moral) to make it to the person to whom it is made a corresponding If it can be said that respondent to the State Assurance to receive to make the communication whom it. occasion an has made has it is an in response to the request made by the Assurance do Authority. not consider he had a similar duty towards The privilege is not absolute but It is lost "if the occasion which gives rise to He only used very strong langua~e which was uncalled for but This the Licensing Authority. qualified defence if there is bad faith on the part of maker of the communication. the learned judge erred on the that respondent is In my view respondent overreacted. bad destroyed to faith. andI hold privilege letter The of defamation. On the the low. issue agree award estimated I the country. I too of damages Mr. Georges had no quarrel of R.15,OOO for general and moral that the Barrado case is of no help in case as in the Barrado case the defamation was broadcast This Court may only increase an award if it As regards the career with Sacos" "pecuniary loss" I agree with counsel for respondent that the ground that there is no award I accordingly As appellant has succeeded on the to pay the costs of the Supreme Court with damages. this to is items and these satisfactory R.15,OOO main and this Court. on to support them. damages for "loss of prospective not find that it is so. evidence appellant. disallowed respondent should issue of be to do Delivered on . ~~--- H. GOBURDHUN, PRESIDENT GQURT_OF ~~FPEAL 'Z ~ c;Nl_- 41c..:- JI/I/9' ,JnrlU.l. I'iC "In I nC::>Uf'i\.l'InUr\.1. I . I. U::>~ 1~~.c:...:tt::J C... LCOJ....:tD r.~~ ~ t.he the to the the TN THE SUPRHKB COURT OY SHYCHELLHS DANIEL BLACKBURN PLAINTIFF HURKRT ATOM DEFENDANT VERSUS CIVIL SIDE NO 114 OF 1992 J"Ul>. G.tuu.'r ! have I.ad t.he advantage of taking cogniz~nnp. of judgement of the Prepident and 1 concur with conclusions reached by him. The issue the defence Respondent. raised or It statollonts lIade on the merits of this CHS~ r~1~L65 Qualified PrlviJege raised by is no ot the Appellant longer iu dispute that were liefltllt.tt..or,J but it is claimed that the Respondent is absolved from liabil1.ty inaslluoh as thosu stCltHDellts were made in tha oour~c of a duty and that. the defence of ~ualir1ed Privilege should be upheld. The trial judge lIade a praisawurLh,J of the prinoiples governing the and correct or defence appraisal Qualified Pr ivi.l.cgc. I l. .i~ Lhe!"cfore not necessary t.o (. HUI:iiider thoso princjples. Ho~everl it is unfortunate that trial judge erred when ~pplying those principles to the the f8Ct~ of this case. The Respondent not unJ., addressed his defa.,atory statellents to SAGOS but, also to the Licensing Authority. lie could be said Lhtd..he had 8. duty towards SAGOS who t"afid retained hi~ services but the diffusion of the dafamatQry statellt!nts to t he I..icenslng Authority was uncalled and 'Was Ilad~ in very violent terlls indicative of for bad faith. .. L... J-'L- r·tJ... J: ",) L •. the defence of Du.::\lified Privilege must. t.hel'-f,?fDrfc· and thw ~ppe~l is allow~rl. I ~lso aw~rd R1500U as damages 1.0 the ~ppel]~n~ with costs both in thi.s COt,lr-t and the Supn:;>m6' Cour- t. CiN~ VENCt-iARD L. E. & ~~ ~ 4,~'" ~;/t I" I ,:a;(~: '~:~~~ ..~.r-'. /:'.,''''-.~.; , '. ~ ,:~. ··f ) . ,.' ..~..'.," .'