Indarmati v W.R. Carpenters & Co. (Fiji) Ltd [1962] FijiLawRp 38; [1962] 8 FLR 46 (9 March 1962)

[1962] 8 FLR 46

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

Civil Jurisdiction

INDARMATI

v

W. R. CARPENTER & CO. (FIJI) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Knox-Mawer Ag. P. J.

25th, 29th, January, 9th March 1962

Tort—slander—publication—publication to spouse of plaintiff sufficient.
Tort—slander—vicarious liability—implied authority of employee to speak to person reasonably suspected of shoplifting—use of defamatory words unauthorised—employer liable.
Master and servant—implied authority—unauthorised mode of performing authorised act—slander—vicarious liability of master.

The second defendant, an employee in the store of the first defendant company, slandered the plaintiff by an accusation, made in the presence of the plaintiff's husband, that she had taken goods for which no payment was made.

Held –

1. Publication of the defamatory statement to the husband of the plaintiff was a sufficient publication.

Wenman v Ash (infra), applied.

2. The first defendant company was liable along with the second defendant, because the second defendant was impliedly authorised to speak to the plaintiff in circumstances in which he honestly believed that the plaintiff had taken goods, but by using words defamatory of the plaintiff, he did what was authorised to do in an unauthorised manner.

Case referred to: Wenman v Ash (1853) 13 CB 836; 22 LJCP 190.

Action in the Supreme Court for damages for slander.

R. I. Kapadia for the plaintiff.

G. M. G. Johnson for the defendants.

The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment.

KNOX-MAWER Ag. P.J.: [9th March, 1962]—

This is an action for slander. In the prayer of her statement of claim the plaintiff has claimed damages for both slander and false imprisonment, but her counsel has now conceded that the evidence is insufficient to support the allegation of false imprisonment. This judgment is therefore concerned only with the issue of slander.

The plaintiff contends that on the morning of the 25th February, 1961, she was slandered by the second defendant, a salesman employed by the first defendant, at the latter company's store in Rodwell Road, Suva. The plaintiff alleges that after she and her husband had brought and paid for certain goods in the self-service department, they were accosted in the main store by the second defendant who said to her husband, in her presence, "this woman" (referring to the plaintiff) "has pinched powder, check this woman she has got powder in her blouse", or words to that effect.