Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] There is only one issue in this appeal. It has to do with the quantum of damages in a libel action. The appellants complain that the judge gave too much. The respondents say that it is too little. They cross-appealed. We heard the appeal and cross-appeal on 23 October 2000. The appeal was allowed. The award of damages was reduced. The cross-appeal was dismissed. The reasons for our decision now follow.

[2] There is no dispute about the essential facts. The respondents are a reputable firm of solicitors. They mainly handle commercial matters - both conveyancing and litigation. The appellants owned a piece of immovable property. They had borrowed money and were financially strained. They wanted to sell their property and settle their debts. Initially a purchaser came forward. But appellants aborted the sale because they had received a better offer from another source. A sale and purchase agreement was drawn up. Another firm of solicitors, M/s Paul Ong & Co, represented the buyer. There is no doubt that the respondents acted with utmost propriety throughout the entire transaction. While this sale was on foot, the appellants were once again attracted by ano