Butler-Moos & Anor v Butler (CS 16/2018 and CS 03/2020) [2021] SCSC 855 (8 March 2021)

Butler-Moos & Anor v Butler (CS 16/2018 and CS 03/2020) [2021] SCSC 855 (8 March 2021)

The court found that while the defendant's statements were defamatory and in permanent form (libel), the mode and scope of publication was limited to a small group of family members, and the only third parties did not believe the statements to be true. There was no proven injury to reputation as required by law. The statements did not warrant monetary damages. The court exercised its discretion to order a formal apology to restore family relations.

Citation
[2021] SCSC 855
Parties
Plaintiff: Etelle Butler-Moos; Plaintiff: Fred Butler-Moos; Defendant: Jack Butler
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
8 March 2021
Case Number
CS 16/2018 and CS 03/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation) / Judgment After Full Trial (consolidated Cases)
Outcome
Plaints dismissed; no monetary damages awarded; formal apology ordered; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Publication to Third Parties, Damages, Family Disputes
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Libel Slander Publication to Third Parties Damages Family Disputes

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Etelle Butler-Moos

Plaintiff

Fred Butler-Moos

Plaintiff

Jack Butler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation) / Judgment After Full Trial (consolidated Cases)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defendant constitute actionable defamation under Seychelles law as frozen in 1976 English law
  2. 2 Whether the statements were published to third parties
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs suffered injury to reputation warranting damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the defendant's statements were defamatory and in permanent form (libel), the mode and scope of publication was limited to a small group of family members, and the only third parties did not believe the statements to be true. There was no proven injury to reputation as required by law. The statements did not warrant monetary damages. The court exercised its discretion to order a formal apology to restore family relations.

Court Disposition

Plaints dismissed; no monetary damages awarded; formal apology ordered; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Consolidated plaints dismissed for reasons given.
  • Defendant to offer a formal apology in writing to both plaintiffs and all recipients of prior communications subject matter of the case.