An appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court, which awarded $50,000 damages to Mele Teusiva ‘Amanaki, in a long winding defamation suit against the Tonga Weekly newspaper and its former editor, Faka'osi Maama, was dismissed on 6 April, by the Court of Appeal in Nuku'alofa.

Mele 'Amanaki was the Secretary General of the Public Service Association of Tonga (the PSA). In that capacity she issued a press release in 2014 critical of the then Tongan Government.

The then newspaper in which government was its sole shareholder responded by publishing three articles about her with a photograph.

Ms Amanaki claimed that the articles and photograph were defamatory of her, and she issued proceedings against the newspaper and its editor, in the Supreme Court of Tonga . Before trial, the Court entered judgment by default against Mr Maama on liability.

After trial, in a judgment on 29 July 2022, Lord Chief Justice Whitten found that the publications were defamatory.

He entered judgment against the newspaper and awarded Ms 'Amanaki general damages of $30,000 and aggravated damages of $20,000 jointly against the defendants.

This resulted in the appeal by the newspaper and Maama.

Dismissed

The Court of Appeal, civil jurisdiction, dismissed their appeal. WC Edwards SC appeared for the appellants.

The Appeal Court stated that the repetition of the publications coupled with the intemperate and inflammatory rhetoric which accompanied them, and the consistent refusal to publish Ms Amanaki’s innocent explanation or correct its errors when pointed out, were of a particularly egregious nature.

"This conduct was plainly designed as part of a deliberate but high risk strategy of attacking Ms ' Arnanaki's reputation with increasing intensity in retaliation for the PSA's criticisms, since vindicated, of the legality of the then government's substantial payments to third parties.

“Neither the newspaper nor Mr Maama can complain about the adverse financial consequences, where their strategy had the desired effect but its foundation was fatally flawed."

The Appeal Court also endorsed the specific findings when the award was fixed at the Supreme Court.

"In total they justified what was a modest award in the circumstances of $30,000 for general damages. We are not satisfied that the award of $20,000 for aggravated damages was excessive. It was the minimum amount necessary to mark the aggravating conduct of the newspaper and its editor throughout the compounding series of three seriously defamatory publications."

There was no cross appeal against the Lord Chief Justice's dismissal of Ms 'Amanaki’s substantial claim for exemplary damages.

"Before us Ms 'Amanaki claimed that liability for the damages award should be fixed to run from the dates of publication, not from the date of judgment,  and attract interest at a flat rate of 10%. We dismiss that argument. It was not the subject of a cross appeal and we note that liability for interest from the date of judgment is fixed according to a statutory rate."

In dismissing the appeal, no order for costs was made since Ms 'Amanaki represented herself.