By Constantinos Psillides
A Cypriot sports journalist found himself in a very awkward situation, after the Nicosia district court not only threw out a defamation lawsuit he filed against three of his former mistresses but also publicly branded him an adulterer.
Daily Politis reported that the journalist filed a defamation suit against his three former mistresses after his wife received an anonymous letter detailing the affairs he had, including the fact that he had a son with one of the women.
The plaintiff claimed in his case that the letter implied he was “a man of low moral standards” thus hurting his dignity and social standing. Additionally, he argued, his career suffered a serious blow as a result of the letter.
The man’s wife, who was not aware of her husband’s affairs according to the court, testified in his defence, saying among other things that “for a man to cheat on his wife was accepted throughout the world.”
The court dismissed her testimony, noting that the wife herself admitted that as a result of the letter the couple fought and their marriage was under strain.
The court also noted in its ruling that “the plaintiff’s intent to deceive the court was more than obvious.” The court dismissed any testimony given by the wife, noting that she avoided answering whether she knew details of her husband’s affairs, and that she had considered a relationship where one spouse cheats as a “normal one.”
The court deemed the three mistresses to be credible witnesses.
The lawsuit was shot down for two reasons, the court ruled. The main reason was that the plaintiff did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the letter was in fact written by the mistresses, and secondly because the letter did in fact mirror the truth.
“The letter accuses the plaintiff of being a liar, a dishonest person, of cheating on his wife, only being married for financial reasons, and that he neither loves nor respects her […] applying the legal principles governing the case, I am of the opinion that under the circumstances the defendants have proved that the characterisations attributed to the plaintiff are true,” ruled the court. It noted that the plaintiff had never denied having an affair with the three women, or that he has a son with one of them.
The court ruled in favour of the defendants and ordered the plaintiff to cover all legal expenses.