Morning Star Co Ltd v Uinahuna [2024] SBHC 90; HCSI-CC 241 of 2021 (2 September 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Morning Star Co. Ltd v Uinahuna
Citation:
Date of decision:	2 September 2024
Parties:	Morning Star Company Limited v Bobby Uinahuna
Date of hearing:	22 August 2024
Court file number(s):	241 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Lawry; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Judgment for the Claimant in the sum of $15,000.00. 2. Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 5 % from the date of judgment. 3. The Defendant is to pay the costs of the Claimant on the standard basis.
Representation:	Mr C Fakarii for the Claimant No appearance for the Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r6.12,
Cases cited:	Asia Pacific Investment Development Ltd v Sasako [2018] SBHC 3,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 241 of 2021

BETWEEN

MORNING STAR COMPANY LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

BOBBY UINAHUNA
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 22 August 2024
Date of Judgment: 2 September 2024

Mr C Fakarii for the Claimant
No appearance for the second Defendant

Lawry; PJ

JUDGMENT

1. The Claimant is a limited liability company involved in the logging industry. The Defendant is a chief from Mana’awa subtribe East Are’Are in Malaita.
2. On 3 May 2021 the Defendant signed and sent a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Forests and Research. That letter was copied to the managing director of the Claimant, the Chairman of AIDC Board Mr Joe Hauio of Orea village in East Are’Are, the Magistrates Auki, Malaita Province, the Rauwaria House of Chiefs and the Registrar of the High Court of Solomon Islands.
3. The heading and body of that letter are set out as follows:
   • “Ref: Total Denial of Chiefs Hearing and a Forgery of Signator by AIDC and Morning Star Company.
   • It was regrettable indeed that AIDC and Morning Star Company saw fit that they should resort to lying and forgery to convince your High Office or Commission.
   • To reinforce the above I must say that I, Mr. Bobby Uinahuna, Chief, representing the sub-tribal group of Mana’awa and Joe Hauio who is also a Chief of Torapusu Sub-tribal land both of Aenahata mother land have not sat in any Chiefs Hearing on the 16^th of December 2020 at Pina Camp as claimed in their response. All Landowners related to Mana’awa sub-tribal Land could blatantly deny the claim and regard the response send to your High Office as an attempt by AIDC and Morning Star to divert your attention from their illegal trespass and felling in Mana’awa sub-land.
   • Their claim is a serious matter thus your office must not be fooled and tarnished with such an unwarranted and criminal implicated kind of documentation.
   • Members of my sub-tribe will accompany your Forestry Officer for the verification and our claim for illegal entry and felling is now registered with the High Court of Solomon Islands for deliberation and judgment.”
4. On 5 May 2021 Counsel for the Claimant responded to that letter. There is no evidence that the Defendant has ever retracted the allegations of lying and forgery. On 31 May 2021 the Claimant filed a claim alleging defamation. In the claim the Claimant asserted that the publication of the letter created an innuendo that the Claimant was a fraudster and deceitful. The assertion was said to have caused damage by tarnishing the reputation and character of the Claimant with the Forestry Office in Solomon Islands.
5. The defendant filed a defence in which he admitted the allegation but relied on a defence of truth.
6. At a directions hearing on 8 October 2021 the Court directed the parties to provide sworn statements as to their lists of document by 22 October 2021. The date for discovery has been extended. The Claimant has provided its sworn statement but the Defendant has not done so.
7. By 26 August 2022 Counsel for the Defendant was granted leave to withdraw. Since then no other counsel has appeared on behalf of the Defendant. In terms of rule 6.12 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 [‘the Rules’] the Defendant’s address for service remains that of Florida International Legal Consultancy Services, Stephen and Sons Buildings, Room 2, Upstairs, Building 2 Chinatown.
8. By 10 February 2023 there had still been no further appearance by or on behalf of the Defendant. At a directions hearing on that date the Court recorded the failure to appear and the failure to comply with the direction orders. The Court made a further order that unless the sworn statement of list of documents for the Defendant is filed and served before 24 February 2023 the Court may strike out the defence. As previously recorded none has still been filed.
9. By 18 May 2023 the Court directed that there would be a further mention on 9 June 2023 and that the Claimant should give notice to the Defendant by radio broadcast. This was done. By 1 September 2023 the Court directed that the case should proceed to trial and notice should be given to the Defendant that the case would proceed to trial on 6 October 2023. The Defendant still took no steps.
10. In order that the Defendant would have notice a further radio notice was ordered. The notice notified him of the next hearing date and recorded “you must attend or your legal representative must attend on your behalf or the Court may make orders against you in your absence.” The Defendant took no further steps. The Claimant has now filed an application for summary judgment and provided a sworn statement of Steven Lee in support of that application.
11. As the Defendant has had notice that the matter will proceed to trial I will deal with the case on that basis. The Claimant has proved that the Defendant wrote and sent the letter set out in paragraph 3. The Defendant in his defence acknowledged writing and sending that letter. That meets the requirements of publication. As this is a claim in defamation, once the Claimant proves the Defendant has published defamatory material the onus moves to the Defendant who has alleged the material is true, to prove the allegations were substantially true. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.
12. There is no question that the publication of the material is defamatory. To allege that a Company has engaged in forgery and deceit, has engaged in unwarranted criminal activity as well as illegal trespass is clearly defamatory if it is not true. When the recipient of the publication is the Commissioner of Forests and the allegations are against a company engaged in the logging industry the damage that can be inferred is increased. The Defendant having alleged that the allegations are true has the onus of proving that. He has provided no evidence at all. That being the case he has not met the onus on him.
13. In Asia Pacific Investment Development Ltd v Sasako and Others [2018] SBHC 3, Brown PJ made comments that can be applied in the present case. He said:
    • “Once defamation has been found, this court shall make an appropriate award according to the evidence. In this case damages shall be restricted to that head of damage referred to as “company reputation”. The evidence to assess both the companies’ reputation before and since publication of the article is sparse or absent. The effect on others than the company, may by reflection, be seen to be suggestive of effect “serious and damaging” to the company, for that is the only way the Court can justify and award. The company’s relationship with landowners was certainly at stake.”
14. In the present case the publication was to a small group rather than in a national newspaper. However the Defendant was the source of the highly defamatory material to a government official who was responsible for monitoring and licencing the ability of a logging company to carry out its business. The Defendant has not mitigated the damage in any way. The publication of the material was deliberate rather than inadvertent. In these circumstances I award general damages of $15,000.00 for the damage to the Claimant’s reputation. That award takes into account the nature of the defamation and recognises the number of recipients of the material. The Defendant is also to pay interest on the judgment sum and to pay the Claimant’s costs on the standard basis including the cost of the radio messages ordered by the Court.

Orders

1. Judgment for the Claimant in the sum of $15,000.00.
2. Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 5 % from the date of judgment.
3. The Defendant is to pay the costs of the Claimant on the standard basis.

By the Court
Hon. Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge