ECONOMIDES V. S. THOMOPULOS & CO. LTD.

• Pages: 9-15

ECONOMIDES V. S. THOMOPULOS & CO. LTD.

9

5

ECONOMIDES V. S. THOMOPULOS & CO. LTD.

PHOEBUS ECONOMIDES

V.

10

S. THOMOPULOS & CO. LTD.

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

FOSTER SUTTON, F.C.J.

JIBOWU,

F.J.

15

ABBOTT,

Ag. F.J.

29th March, 1956.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. WACA 76/1955

Tort - Libel - Proof of publication - admitted by pleadings - meaning of words

- innuendo alleged not proved - defamatory in ordinary sense - qualified

20

privilege - moral or social duty to snake communication - proof of malice -

onus on plaintiff.

ISSUES:

1.

What is the duty of a trial Court in a libel case where the Statement of Claim

25

alleges an innuendo that is not proved.

2.

Whether a plaintiff in a libel case must prove malice on the part of the defendant

in order to defeat a defence of privilege.

FACTS:

The appellant brought an action in the former supreme court to recover dam-

30

ages for wrongful dismissal and for libel. His action was dismissed. On appeal

he did not proceed with the appeal against that part of the judgment dismissing

his claim for wrongful dismissal, but only on the question of libel.

The appellant had been employed to the Respondent, and the libel complained

of was communicated in a letter from the Managing Director of the Respondent

35

Company to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The letter is set out in

this judgment which deals fully with the facts.

On the appeal it was submitted that the court below was wrong in finding:

1.

That publication of the libel had not been satisfactorily proved.

2.

That there was nothing defamatory in the words in their natural and ordinary

40

meaning.

3.

That the statement of claim alleged an innuendo which was not proved.

4.

That the appellant had failed lo prove malice in answer to the plea of privi-

lege.

HELD:

45

1. Publication having been alleged in the statement of claim, and not specifically

denied but rather indirectly admitted in the statement of defence, it was not

necessary for the plaintiff to call evidence to prove this at the trial.

2. Where a statement of claim alleges an innuendo which is not proved, the court

has then to consider whether the words complained of are defamatory in their

50

natural and ordinary meaning, and it is not necessary for a plaintiff to call a

witness to say what he understood the words to mean. The words complained

of in this action are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning.