The Court of Appeal yesterday partially upheld an appeal filed in a defamation case and reduced the damages awarded from Lm10,800 to Lm7,326.
The judgment was delivered following a writ for damages filed by Wilfred Galea and his wife Carmen against Violet Debono and her husband Mario.
The Galeas had claimed in the First Hall of the Civil Court that Violet Debono had caused Mrs Galea damages when she had sent her an anonymous letter. This, they argued, constituted the offence of defamation and Mrs Debono had admitted to the charges brought against her before the Magistrates' Court in July 1997.
The Galeas had asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to declare that Mrs Debono had defamed Mrs Galea and to condemn her to make good the damages they had sustained.
The first court heard that the allegations made by Mrs Debono in the letter were untrue and that Mrs Galea had taken the incident very badly and had to undergo psychological and psychiatric treatment.
Mrs Galea continued to suffer from chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood as a result of the incident.
Mrs Debono pleaded that at the time she had written the letter she did not have full mental ability.
A psychiatrist testified that when he had examined Mrs Debono it resulted that she had a psychotic illness and had lost touch with reality and held false beliefs.
However, the first court dismissed Mrs Debono's plea after noting that in the statement made to the police, she had stated that she knew that the contents of her letter were untrue, but that she had written the letter as she was jealous of Mrs Galea and wished to harm her.
The first court found that Mrs Debono had defamed Mrs Galea and that she had caused Mrs Galea to suffer damages. It therefore ordered Mrs Debono to pay Mrs Galea damages amounting to Lm10,800.
Mrs Debono appealed from this judgment to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.
The Court of Appeal pointed out that the first court had not awarded damages to Mrs Galea on the basis of pain and suffering but because she had sustained a mental disability as a result of the anonymous letter.
The Court of Appeal found that Mrs Debono's appeal on the quantum of damages awarded was partially correct.
It resulted from the evidence produced in this case that Mrs Galea had undergone a personality change following the receipt of the anonymous letter.
The medical experts who had examined Mrs Galea had concluded that her case was serious as it had affected her self-esteem and her efficiency as a person.
A psychiatrist who had known Mrs Galea prior to the incident concluded that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the Galeas had not produced evidence in support of their claim that they had to engage help at home, at a cost, to assist Mrs Galea. Dr Galea had testified in 2000 that his wife was not doing housework and that she was answering the telephone in a limited manner.