Allegations about lawyer defamatory, court finds

Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri yesterday partially upheld a writ filed by lawyer Tonio Azzopardi and found that declarations made by Olaf A. Cini in open court in criminal proceedings in 1995 were defamatory to plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed Azzopardi's claim for damages on the grounds that Azzopardi had not produced the necessary evidence in support of his claim.

Azzopardi claimed that in 1995 he was defending Cini who was charged, before the Magistrates' Court, with having committed bigamy.

Both The Times and In-Nazzjon had, on June 21, carried reports that Cini had made on the previous day about plaintiff while in court.

Cini's hearing was conducted in public and members of the press were also present.

The court heard that Cini had alleged that Azzopardi no longer wished to defend him in the criminal proceedings as Cini had refused to pay him the balance due on his professional fees.

According to testimony given by a police inspector, Cini had stated that he had already paid Azzopardi Lm3,200, but that the lawyer was requesting further payment of Lm6,000.

Inspector Peter Paul Zammit added that Cini was not on the witness stand when he had made this comment but had replied to a question put to him by the presiding magistrate as to why he was not assisted by a lawyer.

Azzopardi testified that he had assisted Cini in a number of sittings and that he had also given professional help to Cini in other cases.

Plaintiff claimed he had requested payment on account from Cini but that there was an outstanding balance of Lm2,500.

As Cini did not pay this balance, Azzopardi had formally told the magistrates' court he was not going to continue to represent Cini.

It was only following a subsequent sitting in this case that plaintiff got to know that Cini had told the court that Azzopardi was not going to represent him unless he was paid a total of Lm10,000.

In the civil proceedings before Mr Justice Cuschieri, Azzopardi categorically denied this allegation and claimed that he was owed Lm2,500 by Cini and not the sum of Lm6,000 that Cini had mentioned.

Plaintiff further claimed that his reputation and professional image had been damaged by Cini's allegations and that he had been investigated by the Commission for the Administration of Justice on the matter.

He had not been found guilty by the commission but had spent much time and effort preparing his case, with consequent wastage of working time.

Mr Justice Cuschieri concluded in yesterday's judgment that the allegations made by Cini were defamatory to Azzopardi. However plaintiff had failed to produce evidence to justify his claim for damages.

As Azzopardi's action was not filed in terms of the Press Act, he had to prove that he had sustained material damages and the quantum of the damages.

The law did not provide for moral damages but only for damages based on real losses that were sufficiently proven.

Azzopardi's demand for the award of damages was therefore dismissed.

The court ordered plaintiff to pay two-thirds of the cost of the litigation; Cini was ordered to pay the remaining third.