Burns Philp (Fiji) Ltd v Associated Media Ltd [1998] FijiLawRp 33; [1998] 44 FLR 145 (3 July 1998)

[1998] 44 FLR 145

HIGH COURT OF FIJI

Civil Jurisdiction

BURNS PHILP (FIJI) LTD

v

1. ASSOCIATED MEDIA LTD.
2. YASHWANT GAUNDER
3. SHAILENDRA SINGH
4. TAMARISI DIGITAKI

Fatiaki J

3 July 1998

Defamation - grant of injunction to restrain further publication - principles governing.

The Plaintiff company sought to restrain further publication of allegations that it was about to be taken over. The High Court refused the application. It explained that such injunctions will be refused save in the clearest cases and where irreparable harm would otherwise result. When the Defendant intended to justify publication on the grounds of truth or fair comment an injunction will ordinarily be refused.

Cases cited:

Coulson v. Coulson (1887) 3 TLR 846
Frazer v. Evans [1969] QB 349
Khashoggi v. IPC Magazines Ltd. [1986] 1 WLR 1412
London Artists Ltd. v. Littler [1969] 2 QB 375

Interlocutory application in the High Court.

G.P. Lala for the Plaintiff
A.H.C.T. Gates for the Defendants

Fatiaki J:

This is an opposed application for an interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff company against the defendants that they "... be restrained ... from further publishing any matter concerning a proposed sale of any of its assets to Courts (a furnishing company) or any other person or corporation pending the trial of this action ......". In its Writ filed with the application the plaintiff company claims an injunction and damages for defamation arising out of the contents of an article published by the defendants in the June edition of "The Review" magazine a monthly publication of the first defendant company.

The offending article is entitled "Sale of the Decade" and concerns the proposed sale of the plaintiff company to Courts for an estimated sum of seven million dollars. In its Statement of Claim no less than seven passages are extracted from the article, all of which, the plaintiff company claims, were published falsely and maliciously.

I do not propose to set out the so-called objectionable passages in this instance and would only observe that in three instances [paras. 6(a), (c) & (d)] the article uses words such as "reputed", "likely to see" and "around the same time"; another two passages [paras. 6(d) & (f)] appear to have been taken out of context in so far as they relate to an overseas principal of the plaintiff company; and the remaining three extracts [paras. 6(b), (e) & (g)] do not appear to refer to the plaintiff company either at all or in a defamatory manner.