Bastienne v Ernesta & Anor (CS 108/2016) [2018] SCSC 8215 (10 July 2018)

Bastienne v Ernesta & Anor (CS 108/2016) [2018] SCSC 8215 (10 July 2018)

The court found that the article was defamatory, the first defendant failed to establish the truth of the allegations or the defence of qualified privilege, and the second defendant as printer was also liable. The defendants acted negligently and recklessly, causing reputational harm to the plaintiff. Damages were awarded based on the plaintiff's public standing, the seriousness of the defamation, and the lack of apology or retraction.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8215
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Bastienne; 1st Defendant: Robert Ernesta; 2nd Defendant: Printec Press Holding Pty Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Case Number
CS 108/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Damages, Justification, Qualified Privilege
Source Language
English
Tort Law Media Law Constitutional Law Defamation Freedom of Expression Damages Justification Qualified Privilege

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Bastienne

Plaintiff

Robert Ernesta

1st Defendant

Printec Press Holding Pty Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article was defamatory of the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defences of justification and qualified privilege were established
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are jointly liable for damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the article was defamatory, the first defendant failed to establish the truth of the allegations or the defence of qualified privilege, and the second defendant as printer was also liable. The defendants acted negligently and recklessly, causing reputational harm to the plaintiff. Damages were awarded based on the plaintiff's public standing, the seriousness of the defamation, and the lack of apology or retraction.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants to pay jointly and severally SCR 600,000 as damages to the plaintiff
  • Defendants to pay costs