A close aide of former prime minister Eddie Fenech Adami was awarded damages 18 years after filing a defamation suit and more than three years after the author of the article complained of passed away.
Two days ago, Mr Justice Joseph Micallef ordered Lino Cassar, who died in November 2012, and former It-Torċa editor Alfred Briffa to pay €5,000 damages between them to Richard Cachia Caruana.
The case was about a feature titled ‘Reddiegħa’ (suckers) published on February 1, 1998.
Mr Cachia Caruana instituted legal proceedings for defamation four months later.
The court eventually put the case off for judgment in 2003.
The court heard that, some weeks before the publication, Mr Cachia Caruana, who at the time was personal assistant to the prime minister, had received a set of questions from It-Torċa in connection with a feature on the acquisition of Malta House, in London.
In his reply, Mr Cachia Caruana had denied allegations made by the paper and warned he would consider taking legal action if it went ahead with their publication.
The feature had referred to “a person intimately close to Castille” who was only identified by the initials “RCC”. It claimed that the individual had acquired the property in London with the clear intention of selling it to the government at a profit.
The court heard that Mr Cachia Caruana had been the managing director of Malpro Limited (jointly owned by the government and Air Malta subsidiary Malta Air Charter), which had committed itself to acquire the property. In November 1995, a new company by the name of Malprotwo was set up incorporating Malpro, as the major stakeholder with 499 shares, and Mr Cachia Caruana, with just one. In January 1996, he transferred his only share to the government at its nominal price of €2.33.
Mr Cachia Caruana had also insisted he had never received the director’s fee.
The court noted that Mr Briffa and Mr Cassar never produced any evidence to sustain their claims or filed any submissions, despite being given ample time.
Mr Briffa had only argued that he should not be held responsible because he had not penned the article himself. The court rejected this argument, saying the editor was well aware that, by law, he was fully responsible and liable for the paper’s content.
Mr Cassar had insisted he had not mentioned Mr Cachia Caruana by name. But the judge ruled the initials “RCC” were widely associated with Mr Cachia Caruana, who had also received a series of questions some time before on the same issue.
The court concluded he had not profited from his position, gained any advantage or made a profit, as the paper had claimed. Even though such allegations had been denied, the paper ignored it and published the feature just the same, the judge concluded.