clr/1984/1984_1_905.pdf

(2)of the Civil Wrongs Law. Cap 148—Holders of Publu Office may be the subject offair comment—Respondents publishing allegation that appellant, a member of thi Municipal Committee, had been a sympathizer of the abortive Coup d'eiai oj the \5th July, 1974— Existence of adequate ^ubstiatum oj Hue facts on which to b^e fairly the relevant conduct of ιhe appellant—Reasonably open to the trial Court to find that the defence of fair comment should sueteed—No absence oj good faith on the part of the icspondents m die sense of thj abo\e sections \9(

1. b)and ?1(2; The respondents published in their newspapers allegations to the effect that the appellant-plaintiff was a person who had been a sympathizer of those who attempted to cany out in our country the treacherous abortive coup d' etat of the 15th July 1974 and that,because of tins,themembersof the Municipal Committee of Nicosia, when they resumed their duties after the coup d' etat, made it a condition that the appellant, who had until then been a member of such Committee should not be allowed to continue to be a member of it 15 20 The trial Court found that the publication was defamatory of the appellant but dismissed his action for libel because it held that there had succeeded the defence of fair comment* which was put forward by the respondents. * The defence oi ·\.ΙΓ ccmment is provided fcr by sections 19(
2. b)and 21

(2)of the Civil Wrongs Law which arc quoted at pp 907-908 post 905 Papastratis \. HadjiEfthymiou and Others Upon appeal b\ the p'nwt

(1984)ff' Held,that the public interest requires that a man's public conduct shall be open to the most searching criticism, that the private character and conduct of a person who fills a public office or takes part in public affairs may also be the subject 5 for fair comment in so far as it has reference to or tends to throw light on his fitness to occupy the office or perform the duties thereof, but not otherwise (see Gatley on Libel and Slander,8thed p.315 para. 732),thatthetrial Courthascorrect­ ly found that the conduct of the appellant to which the public- 10 actions in question relate was a matter of public interest and that the Court rightly believed, in connection with the said conduct of the appellant, the evidence of Lellos Dcmetrudes. who was before the coupd' e'at the Chairman of theMunicipal Committee of Nicosia and who lias resumed his duties once 15 again after the coup d' etat, thatTherewas adequate substratum of true facts on which to base fairly the comment about the relevant conduct of the appellant, that it was reasonably open to thetrial Court tofindthatthedefence of fair commentshould succeed, and that there was not any absence of good faith 20 on the part of the respondents, m the sense of sections 19(b) and 21

(2)of Cap 148, which would prevent the defence of fair comment from succeeding, accordingly the appeal must fail Appeal dismissed Cases referred to 25 SynomospondiaErgaton Kyprou v. Cyprus Asbestos Mines Ltd <Ϊ965) I C L R 222. Stephanou ν HJIEfthymiou

(1976)1 C L R 225; Manitoba Press Co ν Martin

(1892)8 Manitoba R

1. Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Stylianides, P.D.C.) dated the 8th March, 1977 (Action No. 475/75) whereby his action for libel against the defendants was dismissed. L. Papaphihppou with H. Solomomdes, for the appellant. 906 30 35 1 C.I..R. Papastratis ». HadjiEfthymiou and Others G.I. Pelaghias with E. Christophidou(Miss), for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the followingjudgment of the Court. 5 The appellant has filed the present appeal against the dismissal. by the District Court of Nicosia, of an action for libel which he instituted against the respondents in respect of publications in two newspapers, namely "Apogevmatini" and "Phileleftheros". 10 Both the said publications were found by the trial Court to be defamatory of the appellant. His action was, however, dismissed because it was held by the trial Court that there had succeeded the defence of fair comment which was put forward by the respondents. 15 The main defamatory allegations in the publications in question were to the effect that the appellant was a person who had been a symathizer of those who attempted to carry out in our country the treacherous abortive coup d'etat of the 15th July 1974 and that, because of this, the members of the Municipal 20 Committee of Nicosia, when they resumed their duties after the coup d' etat, made it a condition that the appellant, who had until then been a member of such Committee, should not be allowed to continue to be a member of it. The defence of fair comment is provided for by section 19(b) 25 of the Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148, which reads as follows: "
2. In an action for defamation it shall be a defence— (b) tliat the matter of which complaint was made was a fair comment on some matter of public interest: 30 35 Provided that where the defamatory matter consists partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is a fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged 907 Triontaryllides P. Papastratis v. HadjiEfthyniiou and Others

(1984)or referred to in the defamatory matter complained of as are proved: Provided further that a defence under this paragraph shall not succeed if the plaintiff proves that the publication wasnot madein good faith withinthe meaning 5 of subsection

(2)of section 21 of this Law; Also,subsection

(2)ofsection21ofCap. 148,whichisreferred to in section 19(b), above, reads as follows: 10

(2)The publication of defamatory matter shall not be deemedtohavebeenmadeingoodfaith byaperson,within the meaning of subsection

(1)of this section, if it is made to appear either— (

1. a)that thematter wasuntrue,and that hedid not believe 15 it to be true; or (
2. b)that the matter was untrue, and that he published it without having taken reasonable care to ascertain whether it was true or false; or (
3. c)that, in publishing the matter, he acted with intent 20 to injure the person defamed in a substantially greater degree or substantially otherwise than was reasonably necessary for the interest of the public or for the protection of the private right or interest in respect of which he claims to be privileged". 25 Our Supreme Court has had occasion to examine the effect and proper application of the provisions of sections 19(
4. b)and 21

(2), above, in, inter alia, the cases of Synomospondia Ergaton Kyprouv. CyprusAsbestosMines Ltd.,

(1965)1 C.L.R. 222, and Stephanouv. HjiEfthymiou,

(1976)1 C.L.R. 225. 30 Our lawof defamation hasbeen based on, and isverysimilar to, the law of defamation in England; and it is particularly useful, in relation to the present case, to note that the first proviso tosubsection (b)ofsection 19of Cap. 148ispractically the same as section 6of the Defamation Act, 1952,inEngland. 35 908 I C.L.tt. Papastratis v. HadjiEfthymiou and Others TriantaTyHides P. The proper approachto the defence of fair commentin rela­ tion to matters of public interest is to be found in thedictum of Bain J. in Manitoba Press Co. v. Martin,

(1892)8Manitoba R. 70, that "_ and it is now admitted and recognised 5 that the public interest requires that a man's public conduct shall be opento themost searching criticism", which is quoted by Gatley on Libel and Slander, 8th ed., p. 315, para. 732. Also, it is useful to quote from para. 732 of the same text­ book thefollowing passage which appears to be well supported 10 by case-law: "The private character and conductof a person whofillsa public ofiice or Jakes pavv in nub!:ο affairs may a'so be the subject for fair comment in so far as it has reference to or Tends to throw light on his fitness ίο occupy the office or perform the duties thereof, but not otherwise.*" 15 Inthepresent instancewe are of the view thatthetrial Court has uunectly found that the conductof the appellant to which thepublicationsinquestionrelatewas a matterof publicinterest and thatthe Court rightly beiieved, in connectionwith the said conduct of the appellant, the evidence of Lellos Demetriades, 20 who was before thecoupd' etattheChairmanof theMunicipal Committee of Nicosia and who has resumed his duties once again after the coup d' etat. Even assuming, without so deciding, that there ought to be excluded from the evidence of Demetriades those parts of it 25 whichare,allegedly,hearsay evidence,we arestill of theopmion that there was sufficient admissible testimony given by this witness which,when coupled with facts whichcouldbejudicially noticed by the trial Court,entitled the trial Court to hold that there was adequate substratum of true facts on which to base 30 fairjy the commentabout the relevant conductof theappellant. Inouropinionthisis,indeed,acaseinwhichitwas reasonably open tothetrial Courttofindthatthedefence of fair comment shou'd succeed; and we are not of the viewthat there was any absence of good faith on the part of the respondents, in the 35 sense of sections 19(b) and 21

(2)of Cap. 148, which would prevent the defence of fair comment from succeeding. * Seymour v. Butterworth

(1862)3 F. ά F. 372; Dtagiien v. Bennett

(1885)9 O.R. at p. 602; Pankhursl v. Hamilton IISS7J 3 T.L.R. 500; Jolm Ung Ltd. v. Lartgtands [1916] 114 L.T.

1. per Viscount Haldane at pp. 667, 668; Lyle-Samuel v, OdhamsLtd. 11920] 1K.B., per Scrutton L J . at p.
2. 909 Triantafyllides P. Papastratis v. HadjiEfthymiou and Others

(1984)Before concluding this judgment we would like to observe that the fact that in November 1974 the Municipal Committee of Nicosia decided to express the appreciation it felt for services rendered by the appellant while he was one of its members prior to the coup d'etat in July 1974, and presented him with a com- 5 memorative medal, in no way detracts from the reliability of the evidence of Demetriades, the at all material times Chairman of such Municipal Committee, as regardsthe reprehensible conduct of the appellant during the coup d' etat and immediately afterwards, on which what wasfound to be fair comment was based. 10 For all the foregoing reasons this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. 910