Back
1945 Supreme(SC) 38
Privy Council At Barbados
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Goddard, Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
The Advocate Co. Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Arthur Leslie Abraham -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 38 of 1944
Decided On : 09-10-1945
Rosher, Mann, Turner, Crown Rashleigh, May and Co., Minet, H. Williams, R.F. Levy, Valentine Holmes, Sergeant Sullivan
An individual member of a class cannot sue for libel unless circumstances, such as the small size of the class, show the words were aimed at them. Additionally, appellate courts may reduce excessive damages that bear no reasonable relation to the harm suffered, especially after a full apology.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Libel - Reference to a class of persons - If on a fair construction words are spoken of a class or body of persons, an individual member of that class cannot sue unless there are circumstances showing that the words may be aimed at him. The smallness of the class referred to is a relevant circumstance that may warrant leaving the question of whether the words were aimed at a specific individual to the jury. (Para 7)
(B) Evidence in Defamation - Where a plaintiff alleges that they are the person at whom a libel is aimed, witnesses can be called to prove that they understood the words to refer to the plaintiff. However, witnesses cannot be asked what meaning they attached to the words, as determining the meaning is the province of the jury. (Para 2)
(C) Damages - Quantum - While the assessment of damages is primarily within the province of the jury, the award must bear some relation to the damage suffered. An appellate tribunal will interfere if the amount is so excessively high or inadequate as to amount to a wholly incorrect estimation, particularly where a prompt and full apology has been published and no actual damage was proven. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
A newspaper published a letter criticizing the intelligence and efficiency of members of a specific foreign police force. At the time, only two officers in the colony had previously served in that force, one of whom was the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for libel. Following the publication, the newspaper had published a full and ample apology. The trial jury awarded the plaintiff a substantial sum in damages, despite no special damage being alleged.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial judge was justified in leaving the matter to the jury because the small size of the class referred to suggested the words could be aimed at the plaintiff. Regarding the evidence, while the questioning of witnesses on the meaning of the words was improper, the lack of a timely objection and the judge's correct summing up precluded setting aside the verdict on that ground. However, the damages awarded were found to be excessive and unreasonable given the prompt apology and lack of actual damage.
Issues: Whether words directed at a class of persons could be defamatory to an individual member; whether the admission of witness testimony regarding the meaning of the words was a ground for setting aside the verdict; and whether the damages awarded by the jury were excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: An individual member of a class cannot sue for libel unless circumstances, such as the small size of the class, indicate the words were aimed at them. Furthermore, appellate courts may interfere with a jury's award of damages if the sum is so excessive that it bears no reasonable relation to the harm suffered, especially in the presence of a full apology.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
-
defamation
- libel
-
defamation
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- admissibility
-
appellate procedure
- assessment of damages
-
evidence
Lord Goddard. -
The action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent to recover damages for libel published by the appellants of him in their newspaper the "Barbados Advocate." He complained of two publications, one in the issue of 3rd April 1943, and another in that of 15th April. The action was tried before the Chief Justice of Barbados and a special jury. His Honour held that the publication of 15th April was not defamatory of the respondent and withdrew it from the jury. There is no cross appeal so it is unnecessary to refer to it further. He left the other alleged libel to the jury, who gave a verdict for the respondent with £2296 5s. od. as damages, a curious sum considering that no special damage was alleged, and judgment was entered accordingly. The appellants appeal on the grounds (1) that the words were incapable of a meaning defamatory of the respondent; (2) that inadmissible evidence was received in that all the witnesses for the respondent were asked and stated the meanings they attached to the words; and (3) that the damages were excessive. Before setting out the facts it will be convenient to deal with the second of these grounds.
All the witnesses were asked not only to whom they understood the words to refer but also what meaning they attached to them. Where a plaintiff alleges that though he is not mentioned by name he is the person at whom an alleged libel is aimed, or where a name is mentioned, that it would be understood by those who know him to refer to him, witnesses can be called to prove that they understood the words to refer to the plaintiff. But they cannot be asked what meaning they attached to the words because that is the very question the jury have to decide. The Chief Justice ought to have disallowed those questions, but no objection was taken to them, and it is now too late to raise the question of their admissibility as a ground for setting aside the verdict. Moreover His Honour in a full and careful summing up, to which no exception can be taken, put the proper question to the jury, namely, what would a reasonably intelligent person understand the words to mean.
Turning now to the facts of this case, it appears that there had been considerable criticism in the Colony as to the appointments of Assistant Superintendents of Police, and in particular to the recent appointment of a member of the Palestine Police to one of these positions in Barbados in preference to a candidate who was already serving in the Island Police Force. The Government published an explanation of the reasons which influenced these appointments, which appeared in the "Trinidad Guardian" on 25th March. At this time there were two, and only two, former members of the Palestine Police occupying these appointments in Barbados, the respondent, who had been in the Colony for some five years, and Captain Holmes-a'-Court. On 3rd April the following letter appeared in the appellants' newspaper which circulates in Barbados :
"Police Officers:
To the Editor :
Sir,-I have just read to my utter dissatisfaction and surprise, in one of the local newspapers, a reproduction of what is termed therein 'Appointment of Barbados Police Officers explained': I must state, that to me, the reason given for the recommendation of the local candidate being appointed in some Force other than the Barbados Police Force is as perforated as a strainer.
Is there a more beloved and popular Police Officer in Barbados than the Deputy Commissioner, Major Goddard ? Certainly not. From whence came this worthy gentleman ? The ranks of course. Well, than, how can anyone be so short-sighted as to presume that we Barbadians of all other people would not give unto one of our own people the maximum support should the occasion arise, especially when we are aware of the fact that that person is reflecting credit on our sons of the soil ?
It is quite obvious that if one of our people is considered worthy of filling such a responsible position, our first conclu
