The Nation Ltd v Advocate Company Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 27 May 1980
• Neutral Citation: BB 1980 HC 17
• Docket Number: No. 587 and 588 of 1978
• Date: 27 May 1980

Supreme Court - High Court - Civil Jurisdiction

Williams, C.J., (Ag.)

No. 587 and 588 of 1978

The Nation Ltd.

and

Advocate Co. Ltd. et al

Mr. C.W.P. Chenery for the defendants – applicants,

Mr. L.E. Whitehead and Mr. C.A. Williams for the plaintiff-respondents.

Practice and procedure - Interrogatories

Fact: These were two consolidated actions — The two plaintiffs were the Editor of the “Nation” newspaper and the Nation Ltd. — The two defendants were the Editor of the “Advocate News” newspaper and the Advocate Company Ltd. — The plaintiffs complained ET AL that a passage in the “Advocate News” constitute a libel on them dishonesty and untruthfulness to advertise in the “Nation” newspaper — The defendants pleaded the defence of fair comment made without malice and on a matter of public interest — Whether the interrogatories should be allowed.

Held: Where fair comment is pleaded and the defendant has given particulars of the material on which his comments were based, he may interrogate the plaintiff as to the truth of the matter relied on in the particulars — Interrogatories allowed.

1 Williams, C.J. (Acting): The Nation Ltd, the plaintiff in suit No. 587 of 1978 is a company incorporated and registered in Barbados under the Companies Act, Cap. 308 and it is the proprietor, printer and publisher of the “Nation” newspaper.

2 Mr. Harold Hoyte, the plaintiff in suit No. 588 of 1978 is the Managing Director of the Nation Ltd and the Editor of the “Nation” newspaper.

3 These two plaintiffs have brought actions against Mr. Robert Best and the Advocate Company Ltd. Mr. Best is the Editor of the “Advocate News” newspaper and the Advocate Company Ltd is the printer and publisher of the “Advocate-News”.

4 The plaintiffs complain of the following passage which appeared in the Advocate News of 17th May, 1978 under the heading “Mutilation of the Prime Minister” –

“A Newspaper must be factual to its readers and honest to its advertisers in order to establish and maintain its credibility. It is most seriously in breach of ethics when it knowingly perpetrates a deceit on its readers in circumstances where they have no means of discovering that they have been duped. But to take a client's money and then not deliver what was promised — and persist in the false claim that it is the real thing is tantamount to obtaining money by false pretenses. Truth in news and articles is a moral duty of newspapers. The same applies to honesty and integrity in business relating to circulation figures with uncollected returns and lost and found distribution agents, as well as statements about advertising effect in unknown areas of distribution.

To default on these areas is doubly dangerous because people tend to regard what is seen in print as the unquestionable truth. Moreover, the printed word survives for posterity even beyond the boundaries of the country in which it originates. Newspapers therefore have a grave responsibility to present the truth to their readers. To fool one's readers and advertisers is surely to commit journalistic suicide.”

5 The plaintiffs claim that this passage constituted a libel on them imputing to them –

• (1) dishonesty and untruthfulness to advertisers in the Nation newspaper;

• (2) breaches of ethics by the Nation Ltd. in the newspaper business and by Mr. Hoyte in the performance of the functions of his office and his conduct therein;

• (3) perpetration of a deceit on the readers of the Nation newspaper;

• (4) obtaining sales and advertising revenue by false pretences;

• (5) use of...