Benjamin v The Anguilla Lottery Gaming Company Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Georges, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 June 1998
• Neutral Citation: AI 1998 HC 5
• Docket Number: No. 91 of 1997
• Date: 03 June 1998

High Court

Georges, J.

No. 91 of 1997

Benjamin

and

The Anguilla Lottery Gaming Co. Ltd. et al

Appearances:

Elson Gaskin instructed by Lake and Kentish for plaintiff.

Keithley F.T. Lake with Yvette Wallace for the first and second defendants

Stanley Reid, Crown Counsel (on a watching brief only) for the third, fourth and Fifth defendants.

Practice and procedure - Statement of claim — Particulars — Plaintiff claims damages for libel — Whether plaintiff had stated particulars in his statement of claim pursuant to Order 82, R 3(3) of the Supreme Court Practice (1988) ed. — Court refused to strike out statement of claim.

Georges, J.

1 This is a libel action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants by a general writ of summons filed 16th December, 1997 in which he claims damages and other ancillary relief “for libel (allegedly) contained in a typewritten letter dated 17th July, 1997 signed by the second-named defendant and addressed and sent by facsimile transmission and published by the first and second-named defendants to Mr. A. Nathaniel Hodge, the Director of Broadcasting of Radio Anguilla, His Excellency the Governor of Anguilla and the fourth-named defendant.

2 Damages are also claimed in paragraph 2 of the indorsement of claim of the writ of summons from the third and fourth-named defendants for causing the alleged libel contained in the said letter to be published on the evening news of Radio Anguilla.

3 By Summons dated and filed 22nd May, 1998, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for an order, pursuant to Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) “that the company known as Robert B. Washington Jr., P.C. be made a defendant to this action in addition to the five Defendants already named.”

4 There being no objection to the application by the solicitor for the first and second-named defendants, an order was accordingly made in terms of the summons pursuant to Order 15 rules 6 and 8 RSC with costs occasioned by and incidental to the application to be the first and second defendants' costs in the cause in any event.

5 It is perhaps worth mentioning that by letter dated 9 ^th February, 1998 the solicitor for the second-named defendant in fact wrote to the plaintiff's attorneys pointing out that from documents with which he had been provided, “the party particularly in the events complained about in the lawsuit was Robert B. Washington Jr., P.C. a corporate entity, not Robert Washington personally.”

6 It was this no doubt which prompted him to apply by way of summons dated and filed 12th March, 1998 for an order pursuant to Order 15 Rule 6 (2)(a) RSC that the second-named defendant cease to be a party to this action and that his name be struck out of the writ of summons and all subsequent proceedings on the ground that the said defendant had been improperly or unnecessarily made a party.

7 Scrutiny of the alleged libelous letter clearly shows that it was signed by the second-named defendant “for the firm, Robert B. Washington, Jr., P.C.” So that in my view, it is not possible to gainsay the fact that there was no personal involvement by the second-named defendant in the matter. The precise extent of his involvement will of course be a matter for trial and it would therefore be premature at this stage to have his name struck out from these proceedings on the ground that he has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party thereto.

8 Mr. Lake, solicitor for the first and second defendants, submitted that having regard to all the circumstances, the addition of Robert B. Washington Jr., P.C. as a defendant in the action implicitly rendered the second-named defendant an unnecessary party to the action...