White and Royal Gazette Ltd v Hall

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 02 April 1993
• Docket Number: Civil Jurisdiction 1993 No. 86
• Date: 02 April 1993
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

Ward, J

Civil Jurisdiction 1993 No. 86

Julian Ernest Sinclair Hall

Plaintiff

and

David Leslie White

The Royal Gazette Limited

The Bermuda Press (Holdings) Limited

Defendants

Hall & Associates for the Plaintiff

Mello, Hollis, Jones & Martin for the Defendants

Hector v The Royal Gazette 1980 Civil Jur. No. 56

Fleming v NewtonENR (1848) 1 HLC 363

Annaly v Trade CoIR (1890) 26 LR Ir 394

Searles v ScarlettELR [1892] 2 QB 56

Gobbart v West Australian Newspapers [1968] WAR 113

R Lucas & Son (Nelson Mail) Ltd v O'Brien [1978] 2 NZLR 289

Furniss v The Cambridge Daily News Ltd (1907) 23 TLR 705

Lord Eldon v Hedley BrothersELR [1935] 2 KB 1

Leach v RELR [1918] AC 305

Supreme Court (Records) Act 1955

Application for injunction to restrain from publishing transcripts — Libel — Qualified privilege

DECISION

On 22nd February 1993 having satisfied myself that I had jurisdiction to grant an injunction and that there was strong prima facie evidence that the statements complained of were untrue, were likely to be repeated and were not published on a privileged occasion, I made an Order ex parte restraining the Defendants from further publishing or causing to be published the words set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim or similar words defamatory of the Plaintiff or the contents or transcripts of the tape recordings referred to in paragraph 6(ii) of the Statement of Claim, or any part thereof, until the trial of the action or further Order.

The Plaintiff is a Barrister and Attorney and a Member of Parliament.

The Plaintiff's case is that in their natural and ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean:-

• (i) that the Plaintiff had laundered the proceeds of illegal drug dealing; and/or

• (ii) that the Plaintiff had used the proceeds of illegal drug dealing in order to secure his discharge from bankruptcy; and/or

• (iii) that the Plaintiff had acted in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy to import drugs into the Islands of Bermuda; and/or

• (iv) that the Plaintiff had agreed in advance to provide legal professional services to persons engaged in an illegal conspiracy to import drugs into the Islands of Bermuda should they subsequently be arrested or charged.

Further the Plaintiff's case is that as a result of the publication his reputation has been seriously damaged and he has suffered considerable distress and anxiety as well as a diminution in his professional standing.

By Summons of 24th February 1993 the Defendants applied that the Orders of the 22nd February 1993 be set aside. The matter came on for hearing before me on the 8th. 9th and 10th March 1993 when I reserved my decision. I now proceed to give same,

I accept that the words complained of are capable of bearing the meaning assigned to them and do in fact bear that meaning and are therefore, if untrue, defamatory of the plaintiff,

What Dillas is alleged to have said of the plaintiff is defamatory, if untrue. At the Ebbin trial Dillas did not confirm that he had said the words. As every republication of a libel is a new libel, the publication in the defendants' newspaper of 20th February 1993 would be also libellous.

The defence has argued that the publication of documents which form part of a Supreme Court record attracts the defence of qualified privilege. Its authority for that proposition is Civil Jurisdiction 1980 No. 56Hector v The Royal Gazette Ltd. et al. Melville P.J. (as he then was) gave a short Ruling as follows:

‘Re:...