£300 Damages For Libel

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29832, 26 May 1962, Page 12

£300 Damages For Libel

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. May 25. Clifton Raymond Anderson, a printer, of Palmerston North, was awarded £3OO damages for libel against the Wellington Publishing Company by a jury in the Supreme Court at Wellington today. Anderson claimed general damages of £3OOO in respect of an allegedly libellous report in the “Dominion’’ on November 28, 1961, headed "Banknote Charge Conviction.” Mr Justice McGregor entered judgment for Anderson for the amount awarded and reserved the question of costs.

The company could not be expected to know that the apology published in the “Dominion” on the day after the report appeared was not satisfactory to Anderson without being told so, Mr W. J. Kemp said in his final address to-the jury. The company could not read Anderson’s mind.

When told, three weeks later, that Anderson was not satisfied and was going to issue a writ, a letter was written offering to make a

reasonable public apology and publish a reasonable cor. rection to vindicate Anderson’s character, if it was necessary.

Instead of availing himself of that opportunity. Anderson, three months later, issued a writ claiming £3OOO The jury had to be satisfied that the proceedings had been brought to vindicate Anderson’s 1 character, whereas the real reason might be .to make money. Under the Defdrhation Act a defendant may prove, in mitigation of damages, that a public apology had been made or offered. "Inflated Claim” The claim for £3OOO damages was a grossly inflated one which could only be substantiated if malice were established. A man had to sustain substantial injury to his reputation to get such damages. Mr Kemp submitted it was a case for nominal, damages only. A mountain of Sin had been made out of a molehill of innocent misfortune by the libel. Mr Rowe said in his final address. The libel was a serious one. Anderson had not been convicted but the heading com-

plained or suggested he should have been convicted but had got off on a technicality. The “Dominion” report had been conspicuous for the absence of mitigating circum. stances found by the Magistrate, who said, in his decision, that a conviction would have been unjust. The Magistrate had said there was no element of sharp practice or dishonesty and because he did not regard the proceedings as serious he took the course of preserving the good record of Anderson. Anderson was no forger of bank notes or other documents affecting the currency as suggested by the heading Anderson was not called upon to prove presumed malice

Summing up. Mr Justice McGregor said the law recog. nised the right of every man to have the esteem in which he was held by the community unaffected by false statements to his discredit.

The company had made amends, and his Honour said that, in his view, the sum of £3OOO claimed was exorbitant. But the jury was not bound by that view.