Weekly ordered to pay Lm500 libel damages

Magistrate Michael Mallia yesterday ruled that an article entitled Ta' Where's Everybody Jaharbu published in KullHadd on December 9, 2001 was libellous and awarded Lou Bondì Lm500 damages. The judgment was delivered in the case filed by Bondì, in his...

Magistrate Michael Mallia yesterday ruled that an article entitled Ta' Where's Everybody Jaharbu published in KullHadd on December 9, 2001 was libellous and awarded Lou Bondì Lm500 damages.

The judgment was delivered in the case filed by Bondì, in his personal capacity as a member of the civil partnership Where's Everybody, against Felix Agius, editor of KullHadd.

Bondì requested the court to find that the article was libellous and to condemn Agius to pay libel damages.

Agius pleaded that Bondì did not have a separate legal personality and that another case on the same merits was pending before another court.

He further pleaded that the article was not libellous and that it consisted of a journalistic report on matters of public interest that was therefore acceptable in a democratic society.

In its judgment the court noted that Where's Everybody was a civil partnership established by public deed in June 2000. Consequently, the partnership had a separate personality distinct from its individual members.

In this case, however, Bondì had filed his writ in his personal capacity. Agius's plea on this issue was therefore clearly unfounded.

The court further dismissed the plea that another case on the same merits was pending before another court. The other case, Magistrate Mallia ruled, had been filed by the partnership Where's Everybody and not by the partnership's individual members.

Consequently, Agius's plea could not be successfully maintained. The Court of Appeal had, in February, delivered judgment on the case filed by Where's Everybody against Agius.

As the merits of the case were identical to that pending before the Magistrates' Court, Magistrate Mallia declared that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was to apply in this case.

The court noted that the appellate court had ruled that the article was libellous and did not respect the required balance between the interests of the individual to protect his reputation and the public interest.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.