JYOTI’S CLINIC LTD v ANTOINE J. C. & ORS 2020 SCJ 128
FACTS
In this present matter, the Plaintiff which runs Clinique du Nord, sued the Defendants for having published an article with the heading “Soins Médicaux” and the sub-heading “Rs 40,000 POUR UNE FRACTURE AU POIGNET” claiming Rs 10,000,000 representing damages and prejudice it allegedly suffered as a result thereof.
In essence, one Mrs E. de Senneville was taken to Clinique du Nord following a suspected broken wrist which was later confirmed after a clinical and radiological examination. She was treated for same at the said Clinique. The following day, Mrs E. de Senneville took cognisance of the fact that the bill for the treatment of her broken wrist amounted to Rs. 40,790.
RATIO DECIDENDI & DECISION OF THE COURT
The Honourable Court explained that:
(i) Such an action for damages is based on article 1382 of the Civil Code. Under this article, it is cardinal for the Plaintiff to satisfy the Court that prejudice has been caused by an illegal act on the part of the defendants sued.
For ease of reference, article 1382 of the Code provides that «tout fait quelconque, de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé, à le réparer»
Therefore, the publication of an untruth article will be actionable only if it has caused prejudice.
(ii) Next, in order to establish the prejudice, it is not sufficient that the article contains defamatory statements. It is pivotal for the plaintiff to show the causal link that as a result of the defamatory statements, its reputation has been adversely affected – Vide Gatley on Libel and Slander, 10th Edition.
Substantially, it is important to assess:
whether the alleged imputation would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?
- whether the imputation would tend to cause others to shun or avoid the plaintiff?
- whether the words would tend to expose the claimant to ‘hatred, contempt or ridicule’?
Here, the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the court that it suffered actual prejudice in light of compelling evidence showing that it has not suffered any deficits and that instead it has flourished and expanded with the opening of a new clinic in Flic en Flac.
b) Furthermore, the defendants wrote and published an article based on the extensive factual narration of Mrs E. de Senneville. They also gave the Plaintiff the opportunity to give its version of the facts in a ‘Mise au point’ published on 05 and 12 November 2006.
The result of same was that the readers had the benefit of reading both versions of the story before drawing up their conclusions.
c) The Plaintiff thus failed to establish the faute of the defendants.
The plaint was accordingly dismissed.
Attorney for the Defendants - Mrs Joséphine Robert instructing Counsel Mr G Ithier, SC
