Uan v Ritema & Biribo - Damages [2006] KIHC 90; 16-06 (28 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
Civil Jurisdiction
Held at Betio
Republic of Kiribati

High Court Civil Case 16 of 2006

Between:

LINDA UAN
Plaintiff

And:

AAKO RITEMA
TEIWAKI BIRIBO
Defendants

For the Plaintiff: Ms Fleur Hamilton
For the Respondents: Mr Karotu Tiba

Date of Hearing: 24 August 2006

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

Judgment on liability in this defamation action was given in favour of the plaintiff on 21st July and consideration of damages adjourned.

The plaintiff has now given evidence (there was no other) and counsel have addressed.

There are 75 students at the Kiribati School for the Disabled. A copy of the letter containing the defamatory statements went to all parents, grandparents and guardians of the children. Nei Linda said the letter would have been read by many members of the family, not just by mothers and fathers, grandparents and guardians. She mentioned the "coconut wireless", implying that in the quite small community which is Kiribati news and gossip soon spread: what had been written of her became widely known.

Nei Linda is a principal in the Nei Tabera Ni Kai Society. From 1997 until the year before last the Society was supported to the extent of an average of $150,000 to $200,000 a year by Aid Donors - AusAid, NZ Aid, the Ministry of Finance, the Canada Fund and the EU. Last year the Society got nothing: only after judgment on liability was published has aid begun again. Nei Linda said there was no other reason besides damage to her reputation caused by the defamation to account for aid drying up.

Apart from this financial loss, she suffered loss to her reputation. There had been rifts in her family. Members of the family have been called thieves because of her. Her mother has been caused much distress.

Nei Linda said the libels in the letter are still being repeated.

Damages in defamation are very much at large. In some jurisdictions they are far higher than in others. In Kiribati damages, as a rule, are quite low. In Tetabea v Boutokaan te Koaua (HCCC 22/2000) I said:-

It has often been said that the real justification for taking proceedings in defamation is to clear one’s name. The plaintiff has amply done that. An award of damages is less important than reputation.

What I said in that case is equally applicable in this.

Mr Tiba submitted that his clients do not have money to meet the judgment. That is not relevant to the assessment. Perhaps I may add that the defendants are fortunate that damages in Kiribati are low. If, as has been said, the defendants and others are still saying and writing these defamatory things about the plaintiff, then in any future proceedings the damages are likely to be very much higher.

This was a serious defamation for which there should be a significant, higher than average, assessment of damages. I assess damages as $750.

There will be judgment for the plaintiff for $750.

Dated the 28th day of August 2006

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice