Supreme Court orders landlord to pay doctor $10k

The Supreme Court in Suva dismissed an appeal for a defamation case filed by a landlord.

The court ordered the landlord to pay his former tenant, a Nadi-based doctor, $10,000 on June 28.

The landlord, dentist Dr Uma Sharma, and the former tenant Dr Isireli Biumaitotoya, commonly known as Leighly Darling, appeared before Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, Justice Lowell Goddard, and Justice William Young at the Supreme Court in Suva on June 28 for the judgment.

Dr Sharma sued Dr Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012, and in 2019 the High Court in Lautoka ordered Dr Biumaitotoya to a pay $70,000 fine to Dr Sharma.

Dr Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, challenged and filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Suva, which was granted.

Dr Sharma sought leave to appeal and an extension of time to do so at the Supreme Court before the panel of judges.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Dr Biumaitotoya, dismissing Dr Sharma’s appeal and ordered for the payment to Dr Biumaitotoya.

Background

This was an appeal case for a Nadi-based Dr Biumaitotoya ordered by the High Court in Lautoka to pay another medical professional $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for defaming Dr Sharma in an email message in 2019.

Dr Biumaitotoya allegedly defamed his former landlord Dr Sharma when he sent emails to 144 doctors stating property may go into receivership and details of Dr Sharma’s marital problems and dissuading them from renting the premises.

This matter was first filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012 and Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered his ruling on this on May 7, 2019.

Dr Sharma had asked that Dr Biumaitotoya vacate the premises. He also filed two cases to recover unpaid rent from Dr Biumaitotoya.

The court ordered that Dr Biumaitotoya pay $70,000 in general damage within 14 days from May 7, 2019, Dr Sharma was entitled to six per cent simple interest per annum on $70,000 from the date of filing of the writ (2012), which came to an additional $29,400, Dr Sharma was also entitled to four per cent simple interest on $70,000 from the date of the judgment of the court until payment is made in full and that Dr Sharma could file further claims under indemnity costs.

Determination

The Court of Appeal closely examined the contents of the email and determined the meanings attributed to it. The judgment was pitched at a high level of generality and preceded because the email was not defamatory nor did it address the truth of what was said.

Justice Temo said he did not agree with Justice Jude Nanayakkara’s judgment because he did not recognise the combined effect of the unorthodox statement of claim which pleaded that the defamatory meanings were false for reasons that were particularised and the statement of defence which denied the falsity, this meant that issue had been joined as to the truth of what Dr Biumaitotoya had said.

Secondly, the trial was conducted on the basis that the truth of the allegations was very much an issue. By May 2019, when Justice Nanayakkara delivered his judgment, it was far too late in the day to say that justification had not been raised.

“The Court of Appeal judgment did not analyse the email for what it meant and offered no opinion in this respect. Its finding that it was not defamatory was entirely conclusory. Instead of deciding on this basis, it should have engaged in a granular way with the text of Dr Biumaitotoya’s email, the meanings Dr Sharma attributed to it, and whether it was defamatory in any event, just on the ordinary language used,” Justice Temo said.

“If it had done so, it would or at least should have concluded that the email was defamatory. In short, I consider that the court of appeal was wrong to allow the appeal on the basis it did,” Justice Temo said words of abuse are not usually construed literally and that Dr Biumaitotoya’s email was somewhat of a rant and for this reason unlikely to be read literally.

The court heard that Dr Biumaitotoya’s evidence was preferred by Justice Temo since many of Dr Sharma’s answers during cross-examination were evasive, it was clear that Dr Sharma did arrange for a fish shop to open next to Dr Biumaitotoya’s surgery which the court saw as direct harassment.

Thirdly, Dr Biumaitotoya gave evidence so strange that Justice Temo thought it unlikely that he could have made them up. This was regarding Dr Sharma’s engagement with Dr Biumaitotoya over Dr Sharma’s wife’s supposed lover, the welding shut of Dr Biumaitotoya’s surgery backdoor and the steel barricade.

The evidence regarding the supposed lover was consistent with the letter Dr Biumaitotoya’s lawyers wrote on June 15, 2011, and the record of calls to his cell phone.

There was no challenge to Dr Biumaitotoya’s specific evidence that he wrote to the National Fire Authority, the welding and barricade incident, and the fish shop incident.

Justice Temo said the inference was obvious that these incidents were instigated by Dr Sharma.

The court heard that while Dr Biumaitotoya thought he was doing the right thing by only paying rent to Dr Sharma’s wife, he was unwise for not paying his rent to Dr Sharma and if he evicted Dr Biumaitotoya by legal means, then this would have been reasonable.

However, the court considered Dr Sharma allowing his marital problems to become entangled with his tenant and landlord relationship agreement with Dr Biumaitotoya placing a fish shop next to Dr Biumaitotoya’s surgery and welding his surgery door shut while placing the steel barricade as him being a bad landlord.

Justice Temo granted the leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr Sharma to pay costs to Dr Biumaitotoya.

Feedback: waisean@fijisun.com.fj