Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the Civil Court has dismissed a writ filed by lawyer Irene Bonello against the operators of Legal (Publishing) Enterprises.

Bonello claimed that in August 1999, Legal (Publishing) Enterprises had published and distributed Volume LXXXI, 1997 of the Collection of the Judgments of the Superior Courts of Malta.

This volume had included an incorrect and incomplete publication of a judgment of the Court of Appeal of February 28, 1997 in the names "Dr Irene Bonello vs the Prime Minister".

According to plaintiff, the publication contained certain words that had been prohibited by the courts in terms of law, and that therefore could never be published in terms of the Press Act.

Plaintiff further submitted that by the publication of the judgment, defendant had violated the provisions of the Press Act, for the publication was not a correct and full version of the decision, as certain extracts of the judgment had been omitted.

She added that the judgment of February 28, 1997 ought not to have been published since, on March 21, 1997, plaintiff had filed a constitutional application requesting a declaration of nullity of the judgment delivered the previous February.

Bonello concluded her writ by claiming that the publication of the judgment constituted libel in terms of the Press Act, and she requested the court to award her libel damages.

On its part Legal (Publishing) Enterprises submitted that the publication was an official government publication, and had been selected and edited by an editorial board appointed by the government.

Legal (Publishing) Enterprises was contractually bound with the government to publish the decisions submitted by the editorial board.

The enterprise requested that the justice minister and the editorial board be called into the suit.

The enterprise further pleaded that no violation of the Press Act had occurred, for it had merely published a judgment of the courts, which was public, and on which there were no restrictions as to publication.

In his judgment Mr Justice Valenzia noted that Bonello had testified that Legal (Publishing) Enterprises had not published a correct and complete version of the judgment delivered in February 1997, and that therefore the publication was not covered by privilege in terms of the Press Act.

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that the publication reproduced words that were offensive and prohibited at law, and the deletion of which had been ordered by the courts. On the other hand, defendant had pleaded that the publication was not libellous.

Mr Justice Valenzia declared that although the court had upheld the request for the calling into the suit of the justice minister and the editorial board, an agreement had been reached that these were not to be notified with the summons until the court decided upon whether libel had occurred.

The court had therefore to first decide whether the publication was in violation of the Press Act.

The court pointed out that in terms of law, no action could be taken in terms of the Press Act on publications of bona fide reports of debates in the House of Representatives provided that the reports contained the relevant parts of the debate and did not change the meaning of the debate.

Also privileged in terms of the Press Act were reports of judicial proceedings, so long as the reports were correct and the publication was not prohibited by the court itself.

However, no publication prohibited by the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure could be reproduced.

Mr Justice Valenzia dismissed Bonello's submission that the publication was libellous as it did not represent a final and definitive judgment as it was the subject of a constitutional appeal.

The court could not understand how the fact that a constitutional application was pending could render a publication libellous in terms of law.

However, independently of this, it resulted that the constitutional application had been definitively decided upon, even at appeal stage, and that all of Bonello's complaints had been dismissed.

Furthermore, Legal (Publishing) Enterprises had been justified in publishing the judgment of February 1997 as it was not obliged to investigate if a constitutional application on that judgment had been lodged.

The court also dismissed Bonello's submission that the judgment ought not to have been published in a form that was not complete and correct.

According to plaintiff, defendant had published a mutilated version of the judgment.

But Mr Justice Valenzia ruled that those parts of the judgment that had been omitted in the publication did not detract from the sense of the judgment, while those parts of it that were relevant for legal knowledge had been included by the editorial board.

Mr Justice Valenzia added that the court of first instance (in the case that was eventually decided by the Court of Appeal in February 1997) had ordered that certain words contained in the note of pleas had to be removed from the court proceedings.

In the publication by Legal (Publishing) Enterprises, these words were not included.

The judgment of February 1997 was a public judgment, accessible to the public, and nowhere had the Court of Appeal ordered that the judgment be not published.

The court therefore concluded that the publication was that of a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, and had been written by three judges, edited by an editorial board appointed by the government, and that defendant had only been the publisher.

Furthermore, defendant had been bound to publish it in terms of its government contract.

Bonello's writ was therefore dismissed with costs.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

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.