Joseph v Joseph

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: St Bernard, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 20 February 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 CA 26
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1969
• Date: 20 February 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Gordon, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1969

Joseph

and

Joseph

Damages - Defamation — Newspaper article in which respondent was said to be a simpleton and statements were made about the respondent's use of materials under a contract for repairs in schools — Whether the publication was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning — Test to be applied in considering whether the words used were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning was whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men, to whom the publication was made would be likely to understand it in a libelous sense.

St Bernard, J.A.

1 (Ag.) The appellant, the editor of a newspaper called The Workers' Voice, published on the 24th September 1967, an article with the caption, “WALTERS - A SIMPLETON, by Villager.” In that article reference was made to the respondent in the following words:–

AWALTERS SUPPORTERS PROM WILLIKIES DESMOND JOSE SEXTON OF ST. STEPHENS ANGLICAN CHURCH. He never supported the Union nor Government though he always gained. He is presently repairing about 25 desks 8 blackboards, 6 easels, 4 cupboards and charged government $500,00. To this sum the Permanent Secretary decides to pay. It is said that the Premier is a thief but who is stealing; moreover government provided the materials, yet look at the figure. This is squandermania Elpert Cornelius is no longer acting Head Teacher of Willikies. Mr. Cornelius is a nephew of Desmond Joseph, so the hate.”

2 After the publication of the article the respondent caused a letter to be written by his solicitor to the appellant stating that the article was a libel on the respondent and asked for an apology to be published in the said newspaper. There was no reply to this letter and as a consequence an action for libel was instituted against the appellant. The appellant stated as his defence –

• ((a) the said words are no libel, they are fair comment on a matter of public interest, viz:– the amount being paid for repairs of desks, blackboards etc., of a public school, and

• (b) the said words are no libel upon the plaintiff, they were not written or published of the character of the plaintiff, but merely of his method of making charges.”

3 At the trial the respondent stated that the facts set out in the article were substantially untrue. He said he was a grade A carpenter and was a carpenter for 40 years. He was the...