JOHN G. M. COMPTON v PATRICK JOSEPH

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SUIT NO. 175 OF 1996 BETWEEN: JOHN G. M. COMPTON Petitioner vs PATRICK JOSEPH Respondent Mr. P. J. Husbands QC for Plaintiff Mr. O. W. Larcher for Defendant 1996: March 27 May 14 JUDGMENT d'Auvergne J. a writ of Summons indorsed with a Statement of Claim filed on 1st of March, 1996, Pla iff claimed against De following: "(a) Damages for libel. (b) Aggravated damages. (c) An injunction restraining the Pla iff by himself, his agents, servants or otherwise from making or publishing any or similar defamatory statements to or concerning the Plaintiff." ~ On that same date the Petitioner filed a Summons for an against the Respondent under Order 29 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court. Summons reads as follows: f\ "That the Respondent be restrained by an Interlocutory Injunction, by himself, s agents, or servants or otherwise from continuing to make groundless allegations against the

Petitioner to wit: The Petitioner inter alia "owned a Geest Company and in iations e Geest PLC was enriching Geest by extension enri fIt and/or other words or s lar words or words de Petitioner: until a r judgment this action or until further order and that costs in this application shall • costs the cause." Summons was support by an Affidavit Petit deposed inter that was Prime ster of Saint Luc that the Respondent wrote to alleging that had largest shareholding a Geest Company, er Geest and as was in a position of lict of negotiations on f the farmers of Saint Luc to purchase Geest PLC and that ownership of those shares, the Petitioner was extension enriching himself by enri Geest, since t of t assets Geest PLC was far less than the sum paid Petitioner her deposed that the said letter was to lowing: (a) The President, Sa Luc Chamber of Commerce. (b) Hon. Leader of opposition. (c) U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. Embassy, Barbados. (d) European Community Banana Trade A~ciationi and that the contents the letter was so broadcasted on Radio CANA and the Voice of America. Petitioner deposed that sometime February 1959, Ie a practising Barrister, he obtained sixty-five (65) shares for sixty- f dollars ($65) from a client in a company known as Sugar Manufacturers Limited, the shares of which were purchased by Geest Industries (West Indies) Limited, a Shipping and Exporting Company and renamed Geest Industries (Estates) Limited, a Company concerned with planting and reaping bananas.

He deposed that he did not sell those shares and that by issue bonus shares they now amounted to a total of seven hundred f fteen (715) shares. That he had forgotten about s moreover never gained or benefitt from the purchase of • l s . He again deposed that the issued shares of Geest Estates) Limited, numbered 7, 979, 972 of which Geest t es st Indies) Limited owns 7,976,600 or 99.9% S; s shareholding, whilst the second in number, is in actual fact a small shareholding or 0.0089% of the issued shares and that t use the adjective " stl! with respect to s shareholding meant is understood to mean that his shareholding was enormous s ficant st Geest represented a corresponding Industries (Estates) Ltd. He deposed that the Company in whi he is a der is completely separate and dist from and whol unconnected with any Geest Company concerned wi negotiations with banana any shape or form and was no way involved any negot for the purchase of Geest PLC. Again he deposed that as Prime Minister he was never engaged in negotiations with any Geest Company on of the Saint Lucia Banana Growers Association or anyone elsei that he was not involved negotiations between Windward Island Banana Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) and Fyffes PLC for the said purchase. He concluded his Affidavit by deposing that the statements and allegations by the Respondent are untrue and are motivated by malice and that the Respondent was well aware of the falsity of these allegations, but he made them recklessly, without any regard for the truth and that the statements were specifically to embarrass him politically and in so doing advance his personal cause and those of his associates and political supporters.

usual undertaking as to damages was stated. On the 26th day of March, 1996 an Affidavit in Reply was fi Respondent. I pause here to state that I saw that Affidavit for f t at the hearing on the 27th March, 1996 at 2.15 p.m. Respondent deposed was Secretary to Saint Lucia ch represents over two Banana Salvation Committee 2,000) Banana Farmers Luc He deposed that the Affidavit Petitioner was gross eading since it consisted of sentences words extract a letter and interviews over a riod of t t sentences and words were taken out of context. He deposed that according to t st Share Holding Accounts Geest Indust es (Estate) Limited, the Plaintiff has 1 shareholding in the said Company ter Geest Industries (West s) Limited. He further deposed that the register at the Registrar of Company fice shows that there are three Companies the Geest namely:- (1) Geest Industries (West Indies) Limited; (2) Geest tries (Estates) Limited; (3) Geest Indust es (Development) Limited. The Respondent's Affidavit categori ly notes the following: That the Petitioner after Geest Industries (West Indies) Limited is the second largest shareholder; that Geest Industries Estates Limited is a Company within the Geest Group, part of the parent Company Geest Industries Limited incorporated in the United Kingdom.

Further depositions of the Re indicated that the Petit was misleading the Court, and deposed to lowing: That the same person is D or of mentioned Companies which form t Geest group. That the Saint Lucia Banana Growers Act was amended to Windward Islands Bananas Development and (WIBDECO) the e to and market produced in Saint Lucia. That by a sharehol rs Agreement dated 28th March, 1994 made between the Governments of t Windward Islands I Government of Saint Lucia and Banana Growers Associat Windward Islands, it was that the first of the Windward Island Bananas Deve (WIBDECO) would comprise of lowing: (i) The Prime Minister or the nominees of of Windward Islands. (i i) A representative Banana Growers each Windward Island. (iii) A member to be proposed by t Prime Ministers and ly agreed between Again he deposed "that according to the Chairman the Windward Islands Bananas Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) on the Acquisition of Geest Banana Business the Board of the Windward Islands Bananas Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) had the full support of the Prime Ministers of the Windward Islands and the Boards of Banana Growers Association;" that "the loan for the purchase of Geest Bananas were guaranteed by the four Windward Islands Governments which said loan was financed by the most prestigious merchant Bank, Samuel Montgagu of the United Kingdom,"

that "during the said negotiations the Petitioner was in Kingdom to guarantee the sa loan for the Geest Banana Bus ss." He concluded s Affidavit by depos that in s ter to , Petitioner he specifical stated he was cl ficat th regards what to a conflict of st II in negotiations of Geest Banana sion" that the sa ter was an ign observation not mot ed by malice or desiqn to moreover character and reputation of the iff; observation was a r comment on a matter of public that the grant of an unction would amount to stifl hlS democratic right of f of expression and fa comment on matters of ic interest. Arguments At the hearing Learned Counsel for the Petit r quoted cited case of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 AC 396 t White Book, 1995 Edition Page 515 under the c Partlcu~ar Instances (1) Defamation. It Court will not rest ication of a defamatory statement . ...... but the Court 11 restrain publication of obvious lies;" He quoted Halsbury's Laws of and 4th Vol. 28 168 which provides "when qualified privilege or fair comment is to be pleaded, an injunction may neverthe s be granted if the aintiff can satisfy the Court on the issue of malice." He argued that the defence must be based on fact and reiterated the Petitioner's Affidavit. He said that the falsi in the Respondent's case is that he linked one Geest Company to another and that shares Geest Industries (Estates) Limited does not mean Geest PLC.

He said there was malice on of Re can clearly be seen by s icat letter wrote to Petitioner f to bodies and by of famatory statements on two stat, namely, CANA Voice of America. At this juncture, Counsel Respondent to Counsel sa was not the Petit reading from a tendered as an t and whi not got tv to Counsel for the Petitioner ied by stat that Counsel what the broadcast was about less ref reading of that er a from Court. Counsel for t Petitioner cont that malice is a fact for the judge to ide and t Respondent d restrained from statements that are untrue. He further contended Speech as Constitut was not an t must regard for the reputat He argued that the 715 s Geest Est~es Ltd had no nexus h Geest PLC, the Respondent was be icious so ng has caused irreparable damage to the Petitioner. He said that elect was Constitutional due by April 1997 and that the Respondent's aim was to damage the Petitioner pol i ly and quoted Bradshaw v Sealy (1978) 32 WIR Page Ill. concluded his arguments by stating that the balance of convenience laid on the side of the Petitioner and therefore the Court should grant the Order of injunction as prayed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent commenced his arguments stating that it was a ous matter to curtail the Respondent ing cert statements and t "politics" appeared to t reason why the unction was sought. He reiterated the Respondent's f t and that t of Geest Indust es (Estates) Ltd st show that the Petitioner was t largest holder after Geest (West s) Ltd, an observation that can be c made by all upon a ance at the said exhibit. He argued that the observation made was a f comment and quot Gatley on Libel and Slander 8th Edition Paragraph 884 Page 387 "Comment on a matter of public interest. In cases of comment on a matter of public erest the 1 ts of comment are indeed. s is especi ly so in the case of ic men. II fill public positions must not be too thin-skinned re to comments made upon them." "One who undertakes to fill a ic office of f to ic attack and criticism it is now tted and sed that the public interest res that a man's ic conduct 1 open to the most c ticisms." ess there is some clear evidence of malice or some sstatement of fact, no action be commenced, however severe the te the icism may . It should be recalled even if the defendant is mistaken as to one or some of the facts on whi he comments, he will have ction of the Defamation Act 1952, s 6. Those who carryon a iness in which they deal with the public generally are in the like position as public men; their manner of doing business, in all its aspects, is open to the most severe comment." He further quoted the cases of Hector vs Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda (1990) 2 AER Page 103 and Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd v Another 2 AER 1958 Page 516 which states that the test to be considered in a case of libel

where fair comment is is comment is an st ssion He further quot t case of Horrocks v Lowe 1974 1 AER Page 662 which held that even gross unreasoning prejudice does not itself amount to malice. He stressed cognisance should taken that atti the Court is one of caution when dealing with delicate matters of this type, fair comment on a matter ic Interest. He stressed that the Respondent was cating a fact and that mal must be proved. Counsel for the Petitioner ied Defamation Act 1952 no relevance to Saint Lucia and malice was a to be found on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSIONS s decision was res since appeared to me, arguments placed by sides that I had to research on 'Interlocutory I unctions' act of 1 and Slander. Petitioner has petit the Court for an unction restraining the Respondent from shing and repeating famatory statements about Petitioner. Generally, courts are reluctant to fetter free speech because of the questions that may arise during the proceedings, such as whether the meaning of t words or statements complained of are defamatory and whether the defences of fair comment and justification are applicable. ~t for the Petitioner succeed in his request for this injunction he must satisfy this Court that there was malice in the pUblication of the said alleged defamatory statements and that

is reason to 1 1 if were a nature s Re 10 the statements were If comment on a matter , erest." burden is fore on • Petit to s by est st I must to note s a s was never were over CANA ce cannot these two sand is II as f Farmers ficat on an issue on Luc " on a Moreover is my one s not i ar issue, to as: Commerce. (1 ) Pres Luc (2) Hon. it (3 ) U. s. , U.S. (4 ) Banana Assoc In my judgment there is ice regard to writ , Statements, and fore s Is where an unct 11 be even if stated comment.

de il de 2 ) st SUZIE d'AUVERGNE PUI SNE JUDGE

~ SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SUIT NO. 175 OF 1996 BETWEEN: JOHN G. M. COMPTON vs PATRICK JOSEPH Mr. P. J. Husbands QC for Plaintiff Mr. O. W. Larcher for Defendant d’Auvergne J. 1996: March 27 May 14 JUDGMENT Petitioner Respondent a writ of Summons indorsed with a Statement of Claim filed on 1st of March, 1996, Pla iff claimed against De following: "(a) Damages for libel. (b) Aggravated damages. (c) An injunction restraining the Pla iff by himself, his agents, servants or otherwise from making or publishing any or similar defamatory statements to or concerning the Plaintiff." On that same date the Petitioner filed a Summons for an Interlo~_~~ 1 of the Supreme f\ against the Respondent under Order 29 Rule Court. Summons reads as follows: "That the Respondent be restrained by an Interlocutory Injunction, by himself, s agents, or servants or otherwise from continuing to make groundless allegations against the Petitioner to wit:

The Petitioner inter alia "owned a Geest Company and in iations e Geest PLC was enriching Geest by extension enri fIt and/or other words or s lar words or words de Petitioner: until a r judgment this action or until further order and that costs in this application shall • costs the cause." Summons was support by an Affidavit Petit deposed inter that was Prime ster of Saint Luc that the Respondent wrote to alleging that had largest shareholding a Geest Company, er Geest and as was in a position of lict of negotiations on f the farmers of Saint Luc to purchase Geest PLC and that ownership of those shares, the Petitioner was extension enriching himself by enri Geest, since t of t assets Geest PLC was far less than the sum paid Petitioner her deposed that the said letter was to lowing: (a) The President, Sa Luc Chamber of Commerce. (b) Hon. Leader of opposition. (c) U.S. Trade

Representative, U.S. Embassy, Barbados. (d) European Community Banana Trade A~ciationi and that the contents the letter was so broadcasted on Radio CANA and the Voice of America. Petitioner deposed that sometime February 1959, Ie a practising Barrister, He obtained sixty-five (65) shares for sixtyf dollars ($65) from a client in a company known as Sugar Manufacturers Limited, the shares of which were purchased by Geest Industries (West Indies) Limited, a Shipping and Exporting Company and renamed Geest Industries (Estates) Limited, a Company concerned with planting and reaping bananas. 2 • l He deposed that he did not sell those shares and that by issue bonus shares they now amounted to a total of seven hundred f fteen (715) shares. That he had forgotten about s moreover never gained or benefitt from the purchase of s . He again deposed that the issued shares of Geest Estates) Limited, numbered 7, 979, 972 of which Geest t es st Indies) Limited owns

7,976,600 or 99.9% S; s shareholding, whilst the second in number, is in actual fact a small shareholding or 0.0089% of the issued shares and that t use the adjective ” stl! with respect to s shareholding meant is understood to mean that his shareholding was enormous represented a corresponding Industries (Estates) Ltd. s) ficant st Geest He deposed that the Company in whi he is a der is completely separate and dist from and whol unconnected with any Geest Company concerned wi negotiations with banana any shape or form and was no way involved any negot for the purchase of Geest PLC. Again he deposed that as Prime Minister he was never engaged in negotiations with any Geest Company on of the Saint Lucia Banana Growers Association or anyone elsei that he was not involved negotiations between Windward Island Banana Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) and Fyffes PLC for the said purchase. He concluded his Affidavit by deposing that

the statements and allegations by the Respondent are untrue and are motivated by malice and That the Respondent was well aware of the falsity of these allegations, but he made them recklessly, without any regard for the truth and that the statements were specifically to embarrass him politically and in so doing advance his personal cause and those of his associates and political supporters. 3 usual undertaking as to damages was stated. On the 26th day of March, 1996 an Affidavit in Reply was fi Respondent. (i) pause here to state that I saw that Affidavit for f t at The hearing on the 27th March, 1996 at 2.15 p.m. Respondent deposed Banana Salvation Committee was Secretary to Saint Lucia ch represents over two 2,000) Banana Farmers Luc he deposed "that the Affidavit Petitioner was gross eading since it consisted of sentences words extract a letter and interviews over a riod of t t sentences and words were taken out

of context. He deposed that according to t st Share Holding Accounts Geest Indust es (Estate) Limited, the Plaintiff has 1 shareholding in the said Company ter Geest Industries (West s Limited. he further deposed that the register at the Registrar of Company fice shows that there are three Companies namely:- the Geest (1) Geest Industries (West Indies) Limited; (2) Geest tries (Estates) Limited; (3) Geest Indust es (Development) Limited. the Respondent’s Affidavit categori ly notes the following: That the Petitioner after Geest Industries (West Indies) Limited is the second largest shareholder; that Geest Industries Estates Limited is a Company within the Geest Group, part of the parent Company Geest Industries Limited incorporated in the United Kingdom. 4 Further depositions of the Re indicated that the Petit was misleading the Court, and deposed to lowing: that the same person is D or of mentioned Companies which form t Geest group. that the Saint Lucia Banana Growers Act was amended to

Windward Islands Bananas Development and (WIBDECO) the e to and market produced in Saint Lucia. That by a sharehol rs Agreement dated 28th March, 1994 made between the Governments of t Windward Islands I Government of Saint Lucia and Banana Growers Associat Windward Islands, it was that the first of the Windward Island Bananas Deve (WIBDECO) would comprise of lowing: (i) the Prime Minister or the nominees of of Windward Islands. (i i) (iii) a representative Windward Island. Banana Growers each a member to be proposed by t Prime Ministers and ly agreed between Again He deposed that according to the Chairman the Windward Islands Bananas Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) on the Acquisition of Geest Banana Business the Board of the Windward Islands Bananas Development and Exporting Company (WIBDECO) had the full support of the Prime Ministers of the Windward Islands and the Boards of Banana Growers Association;” that the loan for the purchase of Geest Bananas were guaranteed

by the four Windward Islands Governments which said loan was financed by the most prestigious merchant Bank, Samuel Montgagu of the United Kingdom,” 5 , that “during the said negotiations the Petitioner was in Kingdom to guarantee the sa loan for the Geest Banana Bus ss.” He concluded s Affidavit by depos that in s ter to Petitioner he specifical stated he was cl ficat th regards what to a conflict of st II in negotiations of Geest Banana sion” that the sa observation not mot ed by malice or desiqn to character and reputation of the iff; observation was a r comment on a matter of public ter was an ign moreover that the grant of an unction would amount to stifl hlS democratic right of f of expression and fa comment on matters of ic interest. Arguments At the hearing Learned Counsel for the Petit r quoted cited case of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 AC

396 t White Book, 1995 Edition Page 515 under the c Partlcu~ar Instances (1) Defamation. It Court will not rest ication of a defamatory statement . …… but the Court 11 restrain publication of obvious lies;” He quoted Halsbury’s Laws of and 4th Vol. 28 168 which provides “when qualified privilege or fair comment is to be pleaded, an injunction may neverthe s be granted if the aintiff can satisfy the Court on the issue of malice.” He argued that the defence must be based on fact and reiterated the Petitioner’s Affidavit. He said that the falsi in the Respondent’s case is that he linked one Geest Company to another and that shares (Estates) Limited does not mean Geest PLC. 6 Geest Industries He said there was malice on of Re can clearly be seen by s icat letter wrote to Petitioner f to bodies and by of famatory statements on two stat, namely, CANA Voice of America. At this

juncture, Counsel Respondent the Petit reading from a tendered as an t and whi not got to Counsel sa was not tv to Counsel for the Petitioner ied by stat that Counsel what the broadcast was about less ref reading of that er a from Court. Counsel for t Petitioner cont that malice is a fact for the judge to ide and t Respondent d restrained from statements that are untrue. He further contended Speech as Constitut was not an t must regard for the reputat He argued that the 715 s Geest Est~es Ltd had no nexus h Geest PLC, the Respondent was be icious so ng has caused irreparable damage to the Petitioner. He said that elect was Constitutional due by April 1997 and that the Respondent’s aim was to damage the Petitioner pol i ly and quoted Bradshaw v Sealy (1978) 32 WIR Page Ill. He concluded his arguments by stating that the balance of convenience laid

on the side of the Petitioner and therefore the Court should grant the Order of injunction as prayed. 7 Learned Counsel for the Respondent commenced his arguments stating that it was a ous matter to curtail the Respondent ing cert statements and t “politics” appeared to t reason why the unction was sought. He reiterated the Respondent’s f t and that t of Geest Indust es (Estates) Ltd st show that the Petitioner was t largest holder after Geest (West s) Ltd, an observation that can be c made by all upon a ance at the said exhibit. He argued that the observation made was a f comment and quot Gatley on Libel and Slander 8th Edition Paragraph 884 Page 387 “Comment on a matter of public interest. In cases of comment on a matter of public erest the 1 ts of comment are indeed. s is especi ly so in the case of ic men. II fill public positions

must not be too thin-skinned re to comments made upon them.” “One who undertakes to fill a ic office of f to ic attack and criticism it is now tted and sed that the public interest res that a man’s ic conduct 1 open to the most c ticisms.” ess there is some clear evidence of malice or some sstatement of fact, no action be commenced, however severe the te the icism may . It should be recalled even if the defendant is mistaken as to one or some of the facts on whi he comments, he will have ction of the Defamation Act 1952, s 6. Those who carryon a iness in which they deal with the public generally are in the like position as public men; their manner of doing business, in all its aspects, is open to the most severe comment.” He further quoted the cases of Hector vs Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda (1990) 2

AER Page 103 and Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd v Another 2 AER 1958 Page 516 which states that the test to be considered in a case of libel 8 where fair comment is is comment is an st ssion He further quot t case of Horrocks v Lowe 1974 1 AER Page 662 which held that even gross unreasoning prejudice does not itself amount to malice. He stressed cognisance should taken that atti the Court is one of caution when dealing with delicate matters of this type, fair comment on a matter ic Interest. He stressed that the Respondent was cating a fact and that mal must be proved. Counsel for the Petitioner ied Defamation Act 1952 no relevance to Saint Lucia and malice was a to be found on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSIONS s decision was res since appeared to me, arguments placed by sides that I had to research on ‘Interlocutory I unctions’ act of 1

and Slander. Petitioner has petit the Court for an unction restraining the Respondent from shing and repeating famatory statements about Petitioner. Generally, courts are reluctant to fetter free speech because of the questions that may arise during the proceedings, such as whether the meaning of t words or statements complained of are defamatory and whether the defences of fair comment and justification are applicable. \ ~t for the Petitioner succeed in his request for this injunction he must satisfy this Court that there was malice in the pUblication of the said alleged defamatory statements and that 9 , is reason to 1 1 if were a nature s Re 10 the statements were If comment on a matter erest.” burden is fore on by est st I must to note s was never over CANA ce these two sand is ficat on an issue on Luc ” Moreover is my one s i ar issue, to as: • Petit s

as f to II a were s cannot Farmers on a not (1 ) Pres Luc it Commerce. (2) Hon. (3 ) U. s. , U.S. (4 ) Banana Assoc In my judgment there is ice regard to writ , Statements, and fore s Is 1 where an unct 11 be even if stated s comment. 10 2 ) SUZIE d’AUVERGNE PUI SNE JUDGE de il de st 11