SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1937 Supreme(SC) 95

Privy Council At Ceylon
Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Lord Anless, Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
C. Sabhapathi -Appellant
Versus
G. Huntley -Resopndent
Appeal No. 106 of 1936
Decided On : 21-12-1937

Advocates Appeared:
Tatham, Hardwood, Stephenson, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., H.C. Marks, Harold L. Murphy , L.M.D. De Silva, T. Linton Thorp

The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing the truth of defamatory statements and the absence of malice in making such statements. It also highlighted the need for careful consideration of evidence and the credibility of witnesses in defamation cases.

Headnote:

Defamation - Medical Negligence - Roman Dutch Law

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a government medical officer, sued the defendant, a planter, for defamation based on a letter written by the defendant alleging negligence and incompetence in the plaintiff's treatment of the defendant and his wife after a car accident. The trial judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to His Majesty in Council.

Finding of the Court:

The trial judge found in favor of the plaintiff, accepting his evidence and that of his witnesses as true, and disbelieving the defendant and his witnesses. The Supreme Court, however, sustained the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the defendant's plea of justification had been established.

Issues: The main issues were whether the defendant's plea of justification for the defamatory statements was made out, whether the occasion of the defendant's letter to the Planters' Association was privileged, and whether the defendant acted maliciously in making the statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the defendant's plea of justification was not established, as the evidence presented by the plaintiff and his witnesses contradicted the defendant's claims. The court also held that the occasion of the defendant's letter was not privileged and that the defendant acted maliciously in making the statements.

Final Decision: The plaintiff's appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the Supreme Court were set aside, and the judgment of the trial judge was restored, with costs in all courts.

Lord Alness:-

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, dated 9th March 1936, which set aside a judgment and decree of the District Court of Avisawella dated 1st September 1934. These judgments and decrees were pronounced in an action for defamation, in which the appellant was plaintiff, and the respondent was defendant. The District Court awarded the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10.000 as damages while the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The circumstances under which the present suit was brought excluding controversial matter are as follows : The plaintiff is a Bachelor of Medicine and Master of Surgery of the University of Madras, a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, London and a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, England. He was at all times material to this action employed as the Government District Medical Officer in charge of the Government Hospital at Karawanella and had been in the service of the Government of Ceylon for a period of 22 years or thereby. The defendant was at all material times a member of the Kelani Valley Planters' Association and the superintendent of the Vincit estate which is situated at Ruanwella in the Kelani Valley District.

On 26th January 1933 the defendant and his wife paid a visit to one Mr. D. S. Urquhart, the acting superintendent of the Panawatte estate which is some 16 miles from the Vincit estate, and stopped the night with him. On the afternoon of 27th January 1933 the defendant and his wife were being driven home in their car by a chauffeur, when they were involved in a serious accident. The car left the road, fell down a deep slope and overturned. The defendant and his wife were pinned underneath the car. A message was thereupon sent to Mr. Urquhart who arrived in a short time at the scene of the accident in his car. The defendant and his wife were assisted into the car and were conveyed to the Karawanella Hospital. On their way there the car stopped at the plaintiff's bungalow which is close to the hospital. The plaintiff was in his bungalow and being informed of the circumstances of the accident he directed the party in the car to proceed to the hospital. He stated that he would follow them. Beds were prepared with all speed in the hospital for the reception of the defendant and his wife. They were assisted into the building, were undressed and were put to bed. The acting matron of the hospital- Sister Cooper-was in charge of the ward to which the defendant and his wife were admitted. After certain treatment by the plaintiff who followed them to the ward he left the defendant and his wife in charge of Sister Cooper and returned to his bungalow. The defendant and his wife decided not to go home but to remain for the night in the hospital.

Next morning - 28th January - the plaintiff visited the defendant and his wife in the hospital. At that time the acting matron and a friend of the defendant, named Mr. Nicoll who had come to visit them were in the room. The plaintiff visited the defendant and his wife again in the course of the afternoon of 28th January. In so doing he was complying with a rule which required him to visit each patient in a paying ward twice a day. On the morning of 29th January, the defendant and his wife left hospital, and were driven in Mr. Nicoll's car to their home. On 1st February 1933 the defendant wrote and dispatched to the plaintiff a letter in the following terms :

Vincit,

1st February 1933.

The District Medical Officer,

Karawanella Hospital.

Dear Dr. Sabhapathi,

I will be grateful if you would let me have your own Hospital bills as soon as possible for settlement as we sail so early.

We are both very much better and grateful for the way in which we were looked after at Karawanella.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) G. Huntley.

On 7th February 1933 the defendant had occasion to pay a business visit to Colombo and he was accompanied by his wife. By prior arrangement with Dr. De Silva a leading specialist































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top