Ashby v Bailey

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 September 1973
• Neutral Citation: BB 1973 HC 13
• Docket Number: No. 345 of 1971
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Date: 13 September 1973

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 345 of 1971

Ashby

and

Bailey

Appearances:

Sir Luckhoo and Mr. C.A. Phillips for the plaintiff, with Messrs. R.G. Mandeville & Co.

Mr. J.M.G. Adams for the defendant, with Messrs. Hutchinson and Bonfield.

Damages - Libel and Slander

Facts: The defendant made certain remarks against the plaintiff at a public meeting — The issue was whether these remarks amounted to slander of the plaintiff

Held: The plaintiff was the chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation and it was a calculated attempt to destroy him — Judgment given for the plaintiff in the sum of $24,000.

Williams, J.

1 On June 10, 1971 and again on July 8 in the same year the defendant addressed the public at the Fairchild Street Market Place in Bridgetown and this action stems from certain remarks alleged to have been made in the course of his speeches. Paragraph 5 of the statement of claim sets out the gist of what it is alleged the remarks of the defendant meant or were understood to mean. It is as follows:–

“5. By the said words hereinbefore set out the defendant meant and was understood to mean:

• (a) that the plaintiff had been guilty of dishonourable, fraudulent and dishonest conduct in the carrying out of his office, business and occupation, and the said words were calculated to disparage the plaintiff in his said office, business and occupation as set out in paragraph 1 which he carried on at the time of the said publication;

• (b) that the plaintiff had been guilty of the criminal offences of bribery, fraud and corruption;

• (c) that the plaintiff lacked ability and integrity and was unworthy of continuing to act in any public office or in any office or to carry on any business, in particular the office and business which he was at the time carrying on.

2 The statement of claim went on to allege that the plaintiff had been greatly prejudiced and injured in his credit and reputation and in his office as Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation, as Senator and as a businessman, and that he had been brought into public scandal, contempt and ridicule. His claim is for damages and an injunction.

3 The defendant pleaded a variety of matters in defence. Every allegation in the statement of claim was either not admitted or denied and truth, fair comment, absence from the speeches of any defamatory content, non-reference to the plaintiff, mere abuse, words not actionable without proof of special damage – all of these were raised in pleading the defence.

4 Michael Earle, a radio and television technician testified for the plaintiff and spoke of going on June 10, 1971 to a public meeting on Fairchild St. Market Place at which the principal speaker was the defendant. He recorded what was being said on a tape. He played the recording subsequently without having interfered with it in any way and the recording represented what he had heard at the meeting. The tape was produced and played over at the trial and I accept the evidence of this witness.

5 St. Clair Blackman, an operator at the Ministry of Communications and Works, also testified for the plaintiff and spoke of attending two public meetings in June and July 1971 at which the defendant spoke. He recalled some of the things, which the defendant said at the meeting. No reason has been shown why I should not rely on the evidence of this witness and I accept his testimony.

6 The plaintiff was the third and last witness to testify in support of his case. He spoke of his connection with various public boards and organisations — chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation; member of the Senate; attorney and agent for companies and Managing Director of Standard Agency since 1937; Managing Director of Barbados Beverages Limited and Rose and La Flamme (West Indies) Limited; member of the Executive Councils of the Barbados Fire Insurance Association and the Barbados Accident Insurance Association and chairman of those Associations from time to time; Secretary-General of the United Nations Association of Barbados; chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Management and Productivity; deputy chairman of the National Insurance Board; trustee of the Barbados Sailing Club; formerly member of the governing bodies of the St. Michael Girls' School and the Parkinson School; Justice of the Peace. The plaintiff also spoke of the honour of Commander of the most Excellent Order of the British Empire, bestowed on him by Her Majesty in 1971. No evidence was led to challenge any of this and in my view the plaintiff has amply proved the first paragraph of the statement of claim.

7 The second paragraph of the statement of claim alleges that the defendant was employed at the Industrial Development Corporation as Assistant Manager and that he was dismissed from this post in May 1971. This has been challenged on the ground that the defendant was never dismissed and reference was made to a letter written by the defendant much earlier in the year (Ex. “C” is a copy) in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with the new post offered to him and suggested termination of his employment on certain terms. The plaintiff testified that the defendant's employment was terminated on the direction of the Cabinet and stated the letter above referred to was “quite coincidental”. He went on to agree that it was subsequent to that letter that the recommendation was sent to the Cabinet.

8 It seems to be clear from the circumstances as a whole, including the defendant's letter, that the termination of the latter's engagement was, as it turned out, more of a consensual arrangement but whether he was dismissed or had his services terminated by mutual consent — these questions are really immaterial to this suit and I see no need to dwell on this matter at any length. I proceed therefore to the matters, which are really of relevance to this suit.

9 I find that the defendant at the meeting of June 10, 1971 in the Fairchild St. Market Place addressed a moderately large crowd and spoke the various words quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim as follows:–

• (a) I am here tonight to speak only the truth … there will be people with tape recorders tonight recording everything I say. I want to say that I would only ask you to pass the tape to the C.B.C. for broadcast … this man has only been talking through his hat and misleading everybody above all the Prime Minister.

• (b) A company called Hensher that makes furniture wanted to extend their factory and the only place to do this was on a piece of land right behind them owned by the Housing Authority. The Hensher Company asked the I.D.C. to get this land for them. We wrote the Housing Authority asking them to lease us the land. The Housing Authority agreed. Yes we will lease you the land at $1.00 a year for fifty years. Hear that. We will lease you the land at $1.00 a year for fifty years. We told them thank you very much. We will take it. We will then turn around and rent this land to the company at whatever rent we felt was a reasonable rent and it could have been anything between $500 and $1,000 a year working out at our rate of between 5 cents and 10 cents per square foot. There were our rates. The Board agreed oh yes. Let us sign the lease especially because the Housing Authority had been asked about purchasing or buying and they said they would sell for $10,000. That meant it would take you between ten and twenty years to make back that money. Who would want to spend $10,000 and take twenty years to get it back if you can spend $1 a year and get back $500 or even $1,000? But when the great brilliant Sam Ashby came back the following month and saw this decision he got very angry, raving mad and told the Board they had made a very bad decision. They should buy the land, they are going to be very sorry in the future that they did not buy this land and he ended up by saying he doesn't know where this idea of leasing came from in the first place. What ignorance when it is the very Corporation that had authorised such a right to the Housing Authority and agreed to the lease and the solicitors had drawn up the lease. But this is Ashby all over again. The people we have on the Industrial Development Corporation are such docile lamblike spineless creatures that would you believe it that they all sat down there and said nothing. Those six men had made the decision the previous month to sign this lease and when Ashby came back talking this nonsense they all sat down and said nothing. But I am not that type of person and when Ashby said that he didn't know where the idea of leasing came from in the first place I felt that if it had been my recommendation to the Board, that I had to justify the recommendation so I calmly took the file and I said ‘Mr. Chairman for your information from the very first beginning of this matter the idea was always the lease’ and I read the letter to the Housing Authority, I read their reply – yes, we will let you have it at $1 a year; I read the letter to the company telling them that we will rent you this land for so and so and said that's the position. He could not say a word. He just kept his mouth shut but from then on I was a marked man as far as Ashby was concerned. He stuck his knife in me from then and he never took it out again and if I give you an example and show you that it was this that was the beginning of the problem ……….. You want to hear about bribe well I have heard about them too but I don't know about them so I can't say too much but I would like to say this and this I didn't mention I didn't remember to mention with the Hensher case. Why should Ashby be angry with the Board for making a decision that was in the interest of the Corporation? You thought of that? Because the Corporation only stands to benefit if you only have to pay $100 a year on that land. Why should he be angry? You know why? I found this out...