Lin Wan Xin and Lin Brothers Pty Ltd v Wang Yanhong, Xiao Zhichun and Lin Sheng (2001) N2160

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Sevua J
• Judgment Date: 07 December 2001
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2001) N2160
• Year: 2001
• Judgement Number: N2160

Full Title: Lin Wan Xin and Lin Brothers Pty Ltd v Wang Yanhong, Xiao Zhichun and Lin Sheng (2001) N2160

National Court: Sevua J

Judgment Delivered: 7 December 2001

N2160

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

WS 952 of 1998

BETWEEN

LIN WAN XIN

First Plaintiff

AND

LIN BROTHERS PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

WANG YANHONG

First Defendant

AND

XIAO ZHICHUN

Second Defendant

AND

LIN SHENG

Third Defendant

Waigani : Sevua, J.

1999 : 13th August

2001 : 7th December

Defamation — Libel — Measure of damages — Discretionary — Damages to compensate injured plaintiff for injury to reputation etc. — Where injured plaintiff is a corporation compensation for aggravated damages and damages for pecuniary loss may be awarded.

Cases cited:

PNG Aviation Services Pty Ltd & 3 Ors v. Michael Thomas Somare & The Independent State of Papua New Guinea; N.1493, unreported, 20th November 1996

David Coyle & Ors v. Loani Henao; SC 655, unreported, 30th December 2000

PNG Aviation Services Pty Ltd v. Michael Thomas Somare & The Independent State of Papua New Guinea; (SCA 5 of 1997), unreported and unnumbered, …… December 2000

A.Kandakasi for Plaintiffs

7th December 2001

SEVUA, J: This is an assessment of damages. On 9th December 1998, judgment was entered against the second and third defendants. On 3rdMarch 1999, judgment was entered against the first defendant. Assessment of damages was fixed for the 13th of August 1999, however as the defendants did not appear in person and were not represented by counsel, counsel for the plaintiffs asked that the defendants be given the opportunity to appear on the assessment of damages to present submissions if desired. Following application by the plaintiffs' counsel, the Court directed that notice of assessment of damages be given to the defendants by publication in the Post Courier and The National. Orders to that effect were given on 13th August 1999. The defendants have not availed themselves to that opportunity.

At this juncture the Court wishes to apologise to the plaintiffs and their lawyers for the long delay in finalising this matter, which was not intended. The delay was caused by an oversight following the orders of 13th August 1999. The assessment was never listed in my list of outstanding judgments until recently, after Mr. Kandakasi had been appointed to the bench and he kindly drew my attention to it. The Court therefore apologise to the plaintiffs and their lawyers for the delay caused by the oversight,

As adverted to at the outset, judgment had been entered against all the defendants in this action for failure to file their defence.

The plaintiffs' principal relief claimed in their writ was damages for defamation pleaded in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the statement of claim. They also claimed interest and costs.

It is not intended to set out the allegations of defamation in full as they appear in paragraphs 3, suffice it to say, the defamatory imputations against the first plaintiff can be summarized as follows. That the first plaintiff was :-

(a) a criminal who has prior convictions and was imprisoned in China;

(b) an adulterer;

(c) a thief or robber;

(d) an evil man;

(e) involved in bribing various government officials;

(f) an arsonist;

(g) possessor of illegal firearms;

(h) involved in illegal human smuggling of Chinese nationals into PNG

and illegal issuing and renewal of visas, and

(i) a drug dealer.

The defamatory remarks against the second plaintiff were that it facilitated, aided and abetted the illegal activities of the first plaintiff therefore it should be de-registered as a company in the records of Investment Promotion Authority and the work permits of its employees revoked.

The defendants did not defend the proceedings. Despite being given another opportunity to defend the assessment they have shown no interest. It is evident to the Court that they are not interested in these proceedings and as judgment has been entered against all of them, liability is not in issue.

The plaintiffs rely on the first plaintiff's affidavit sworn on 4th May 1999, which sets out the losses he claimed to have been suffered by him and the second defendant. As there is no evidence by the defendants to refute or dispute that evidence I accept it. I am satisfied from that evidence that the plaintiffs have suffered loss and damages.

Order 8 Rule 21 and Order 9 Rule 30 of the National Court Rules are pertinent to this matter, in particular, the defendants' failure to file any pleadings to traverse the plaintiffs' claim. It is not necessary to cite those rules except say that since the defendants have not traversed the plaintiffs' pleadings they have admitted the allegations in the statement of claim therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as it were.

I accept the plaintiffs' evidence and I am satisfied that as a result of the defamation published by the defendants and circulated to key government officers and departments, the second plaintiff had lost income from...