Claudia Henry v Albert Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Dominica
• Judge: COTTLE J,Brian Cottle
• Judgment Date: 20 August 2010
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2010] ECSC J0820-1
• Court: High Court (Dominica)
• Docket Number: DOMHCV2006/0009
• Date: 20 August 2010

[2010] ECSC J0820-1

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Before:

The Hon. Justice Brian Cottle

DOMHCV2006/0009

Between:

Claudia Henry

Claimant

and

Albert Thomas

Defendant

Appearances:

Mrs. Heather Felix-Evans for Claimant

Dr. William Riviere for Defendant

COTTLE J

1 The claimant brought the present action against the defendant for damages for defamation. Claudia Henry and Albert Thomas were employees of the Roseau Co-Operative Credit Union. On 1^st July 2004 at a management staff meeting, Albert Thomas spoke the following words;

"The reason for the significant reduction of overtime in the Loans Department in May 2004 was because before management of the loans department was collaborating with staff to deliberately work overtime."

"Management should investigate the matter and take steps in ensuring that staff does not abuse the system."

Claudia Henry was the manager of the Loans department. She was absent from the meeting as she was on vacation leave at the time.

He went on to add

2 On her return, Claudia Henry complained of the words spoken as she considered that they were defamatory of her. Albert Thomas insisted that he stood by his words and would maintain that position until an investigation was carried out. The General Manager ordered an investigation into the allegations leveled by Albert Thomas. An internal auditor was appointed. A report was made by the auditor on his findings. His report did not support the position adopted by Albert Thomas.

3 The General Manager asked Albert Thomas to either substantiate his statement or withdraw it and apologize to Claudia Henry. Albert Thomas failed to substantiate his allegations. He refused to retract his statement. He did not apologize. At the trial of his claim the defendant denied that the words spoken were defamatory of Ms Henry. Alternatively he says that the words were spoken on an occasion of qualified privilege.

Are the words defamatory?

4 In deciding whether the words are defamatory I first look at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in question. Without attempting any strained or over elaborate analysis I ask myself, what would these words have conveyed to the other managers of the Roseau Co-Operative Credit Union at that meeting? My conclusion is that the defendant, Mr. Thomas, was saying that Ms. Henry, the manager of the loans department, had collaborated with her staff to abuse the credit union's system and deliberately work overtime when such overtime work was not merited. This would have the effect of causing the credit union to incur expenses above and beyond those needed to carry out its functions. In effect Mr. Thomas is saying that Ms. Henry participated in a scheme with her staff to defraud the credit union.

5 In my opinion the words spoken could convey no other meaning than a defamatory one. There can be no question that the effect of the words would be to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society. Indeed I put it higher than this—the words would also mean that the claimant was unfit to continue as manager of the loans department of the Roseau Co-Operative Credit Union. I completely reject the suggestion that the words merely connoted inefficiency on the part of claimant in the carrying of her managerial functions.

Qualified Privilege

6 A defendant to an action for defamation may avail himself of a defense of qualified privilege where two pre conditions are met. I can do no better than quote Rawlins J A (as he then was) inBristol v St. Rose

"The principle is that an occasion is privileged where the person who makes the impugned statements has an interest or a social moral or legal duty to make them to the person to whom they are made, while the person to...