Roxane Linton v Louisiana Dubique

EASTERN CARIBBEAN HIGH COMMONWEALTH DOMINICA Appearances: JUDGMENT Written Submissions AeTIE MASTER [AG.]: assessment of damages relates to a claimant, a customs officer employed with the customs department, by claim form with statement of claim filed on February 2011, claimed against the defendants damages including aggravated damages, exemplary damages, an injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing of defamatory words the interests and costs, of of damages in the sum including aggravated damages and $50,000.00 for The Claimant’s Submissions avers words complained of are highly defamatory of her professional calling as a customs officer by branding her as a dishonest and who colludes, aids and abets persons evade customs words provide an dissemination General Damages including Aggravated Damages in the in support of her claim cited the followings authorities: Edmund Mansoor v Eugene Silcott ANUHCV 2010/0209. Ralph Gonsalves v Edwardo Lynch & BDS Ltd (SVGCV 2002/0406). Gairy v Bullen & Andrew GHC No.97 of 1968. Morgan v Odham Press Ltd (1970) I WLR. 4] Edwardo claimant Minister Ralph onS81Vf!S & BOS & Edward Lynch and BOS v Ralph “”nc’n£u V Steve Fassihi & both pleadings and evidence did demonstrate a “high and distinguishable” profile as in the case of the Han. Gonsalves and Mitchel matters (supra). The Defendants contend these cases are distinguishable from the claimant’s case and the award significantly less. The defendants submit that a sum of $10,000.00 an appropriate award for damages taking into account the authorities Mitchel of flncUcatl<:m v John Raheal1 some and Siander2 damages in cases cases is the effects defamatory statement, a more complex it in case of nOF’tJnn or negligence. It has been that general damages serve three functions: to act as a consolation the claimant for the he suffers from the publication of the statement; to repair the his reputation (including, where relevant, his business reputation); as a vindication of his reputation” 91 are several factors that are to be taken into consideration in any assessment damages in a defamation action namely:3 1 Per Kangaloo JA Trinidad & Tobago Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2006 2 Libel and 9th edition at pages 201·202 News Centre John Rahael (supra) the conduct of were published on to numerous of at The Gravity of the Publication at the time of the publication was a customs officer employed by the the Commonwealth Dominica. The claimant avers that she had resign from her position as it became so uncomfortable in her working environment the customs department as she was expected to interact with members of the private and public sector. The claimant said that she was unable public scandal and contempt behaviour the defendant taking into consideration I’!liU<ltil’\1’l or mitigation date an apology Damages claimant cited several cases on libel as a guide in assessing the of damages including; Dr. Edmond Mansoor v Eugene Silcott4 where Michel J made an award of 0,000.00 compensate the claimant, a minister of government, for libel published a calypso. The claimant in that case claimed that the defamatory published in song meant that he was bribing other ministers of government. 4 ANUHCV 0/0209 decided on March

[28]News Center John Rahael of Richardson & 80S 80S limited v Ralph Gonsalves is of view publication was as a result claimant is entitled to general compensate for injury to her feelings, embarrassment and personally and professionally as a customs officer. damages for injury to reputation, the most important factor is the libel, the more closely it touches the plaintiff’s personal integrity 5 Civil Appeal no.166 of 2006 delivered on 9th July 2009 6 Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2005 delivered February 2006 7 delivered 26 November 2008 HCVAP2009/002 & CVAP2009/004 delivered on June 201 defamation is Marina Marshall was as employment of Dominica. extent of the publication in the case bar case of Elwardo C.Lynch v Ralph Gonsalves;11 BDS Limited v Ralph Gonsalves where the defamatory statements were made in a had limited transmission broadcast on the radio station in & the Grenadines and was not broadcasted on the internet. The publication affect the earning capacity of the Prime Minister. The 9 (1966) 2 All E R 36 at page 47 ‘0 DOMHCV 2001/0318 delivered on September 23,2009 11 Consolidated & CVAP2009/004 delivered on June 201 forms the view to was uUICll”‘U by an in the performance of duties. Elwardo C,lynch v Ralph Gonsalves; 8DS limited v Ralph Gonsalves). at paragraph 58 states: reviewed evidence along with the evidence of. .1 have concluded that there is some merit in the submissions of learned counsel Mr. John. The Master in fact accepted that the live broadcast on NICE Station had limited transmission broadcast in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and she acknowledged that it was not published on the internet. Gonsalves, Mitchell in Halsbury’s laws of England: that, the publication would be tortuous, or was reckless as to whether it was, and nevertheless decided to publish the words complained because the prospects of material advantage outweighed the prospects loss. The mere fact that words were published in ordinary course of a business run with a view to profit is not of itself m.rlonT to establish the required calculation material advantage,” In present matter, the claimant has not shown that the defendants got any material advantage from the libellous statements published, The defendants claimed that the email was sent in error. It appears from the evidence that the 1/0398 delivered on 26th October is