[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2003 >> [2003] VUSC 22

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Roosen v Vanuatu Broadcasting and Television Services [2003] VUSC 22; Civil Case 123 of 2000 (5 May 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 123 of 2000

BETWEEN:

MR. JOHN ROOSEN
Plaintiff

AND:

VANUATU TELEVISION AND BROADCASTING SERVICES
First Defendant

AND:

MR. WILSON TOA
Second Defendant

AND:

MR. JOE HARRY
Third Defendant

RULING ON COSTS

This was an action for defamation brought against a newspaper, its editor and a journalist. The newspaper has published an apology and that part of the action is finished. The plaintiff has discontinued the action against the second and third defendants, the editor and the journalist. They claim their costs. The plaintiff resists the claim.

The plaintiff says the action is the same against all three defendants. It would be wrong to let them have costs when there has been a published apology. The second and third defendants say the action has caused them many problems in their professional lives and legal costs.

They say there is a counterclaim. This is not a counterclaim, it is part of the defence. They say they were not consulted about the settlement agreement with the first defendant. The action has been discontinued against them.

It is not difficult to understand the plaintiff’s frustration if a costs order is made. (Apparently, however, he left the country during the last week). The fact is an action was brought against the second and third defendants. It was discontinued. They are entitled to their costs on the standard scale.

The two defendants must be careful to ensure that what they claim for costs is allowable under this order.

Dated at Port Vila, this 5th day of May, 2003.

R. J. COVENTRY

Judge.