CCJ Reverses G$15M award in Defamation case, says awards from other Caribbean countries not automatic benchmark – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana
# CCJ Reverses G$15M award in Defamation case, says awards from other Caribbean countries not automatic benchmark
by Denis Chabrol
Saturday, 30 July 2016, 14:06
Last Updated on Saturday, 30 July 2016, 14:06 by Denis Chabrol
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, CCJ – CCJ, Port of Spain. Today the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in Glen Lall & National Media and Publishing Company Limited v Walter Ramsahoye refused to increase the G$15 million award of damages made to Dr Ramsahoye by the Guyana Court of Appeal.
Indeed, it reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and reinstated the trial judge’s award of G$4.5 million. In its ruling on defamatory material appearing in the Kaieteur News newspaper in 2000, the CCJ held that damages must be awarded in accordance with the law, practice and traditions of Guyana and cannot be assessed on the basis of a comparison of awards made in other Caribbean territories where prevailing socio-economic conditions, including Gross Domestic Profit (GDP), are different.
Between 21 January and 10 February 2000 an article and two caricatures with captions, all referring to Dr Ramsahoye in exceptionally disparaging terms, were published in the Kaieteur News by the Appellants, Glen Lall and National Media and Publishing Co Ltd (‘National Media’).
In 2008 Dr Ramsahoye successfully sued the Appellants for damages for defamation and was awarded G$4.5 million in damages and G$125,000 in costs in the High Court by the Honourable Justice Rishi Persaud, who stated that this award was the highest of its nature in Guyana.
Both Dr Ramsahoye and Glen Lall and National Media challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal. Dr Ramsahoye contended that the award was too low while Glen Lall and National Media argued that the publications were not defamatory and that the damages awarded were unreasonable and excessive. The appeal was heard after the Appellants had paid into court the G$4.5million awarded in the High Court. During the appeal, Glen Lall and National Media conceded that the publications were defamatory but maintained that the award was too high. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, found that the sum awarded was inadequate and did not properly compensate Dr Ramsahoye. It substituted an award of G$15million for damages.
Glen Lall and National Media appealed to the CCJ, arguing that the Court of Appeal was wrong to increase the award. Dr Ramsahoye in his cross-appeal sought to have the award further enlarged and to have an award of interest. The CCJ allowed the appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision. It concluded that there was no justification for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the trial judge’s award as he had not erred in the application of legal principle nor made an award that was inordinately low. He had taken account of aggravating or punitive factors in making his global award of G4.5million.
The CCJ declined to award pre-judgment interest at this stage as the matter had not been argued and there was no guidance from the lower courts on the point. It held, however, that judgment debt interest continued to run from the date of the High court judgment despite the payment into Court which now had to be paid out to Dr Ramsahoye.
The appeal was heard by the CCJ’s judicial panel comprising The Honourable Justices Nelson (presiding), Saunders, Hayton, Anderson and Rajnauth-Lee. Justice Anderson delivered the judgment of the Court. Mr Sanjeev Datadin and Mr Stephen A Singh were the attorneys representing Glen Lall and National Media. The attorneys representing Dr Ramsahoye were Mr Anand Ramlogan SC, Mr Roopnarine Satram, Mr Chandrapratesh V Satram, Mr Mahendra Satram, Mr Ganesh Hira, Mr Alvin Paraigsingh and Mr Douglas Bayley
27. For the foregoing reasons, I would quash the Court of Appeal's decision and restore the first instance finding in favour of the appellant. I would however quash the jury's award of damages and substitute an award of £1 nominal damages. The appellant is entitled to protection against repetition of the allegation that he actually fixed or attempted to fix matches, and I would give him leave to apply to the High Court for the grant of a suitably-worded injunction limited to restraining the publication of words which mean or could reasonably be understood to mean that he had fixed or attempted to fix matches and extending no further, unless a suitable undertaking is offered. The newspaper's important right of free expression is not infringed by restraining re-publication of what the jury has found to be a falsehood. As asked by both parties, I would invite written submissions on the costs of these proceedings.
...
it open to
...
34. The consequence of the Court of Appeal's conclusion must now be considered. It would have been within the power of the Court of Appeal to order a retrial. It was, however, a result for which understandably neither side argued. The Court of Appeal rightly did not order a retrial. In these circumstances, the duty devolved upon the Court of Appeal to substitute a fair and realistic verdict which was open to the jury on the evidence and on the judge's directions. Given that Mr Grobbelaar was shown to be a corrupt goalkeeper it was within the discretion of the Court of Appeal to adopt one of two courses, namely (a) to find in favour of the Sun on substantial justification or (b) to find on liability in favour of Mr Grobbelaar but award a nominal sum of £1. Either decision was open to the jury and therefore open to the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court to adopt course (a) was sound in law and just.
...
36. If, contrary to my view, the correct disposal of this case is to allow the appeal, to restore the verdict in favour of Mr Grobbelaar and to reflect his systematic corrupt dealings with a reduced award of damages, he should in my view only be entitled to a derisory award of £1. His reputation as a sportsman has been destroyed by his corrupt dealings. To award him anything more would be an affront to sport, public justice and public policy.
...
116
...
on the justification issue but the evidence properly before the jury on
...
disclosed that the reputation to which he
...
entitled is so depreciated that the damages which he should be awarded for the damage to his reputation by the (*ex hypothesi*) defamatory publication should be reduced below the level that would be appropriate for a plaintiff with an impeccable reputation, maybe even to a nominal figure: as Neill LJ said in
...
Pamplin* at [1988] 1 WLR
...
.120
...
and the summing
...
. Before the publications in question
...
the plaintiff had a very high reputation in
...
world of football as an
...
goalkeeper. The publications were designed to
...
The defendants were
...
justify the libel. It was
...
of Appeal would have
...
conclude, a case of
...
and liable to be set aside. But it is
...
say that, because the damages should be reduced on grounds of
...
justification, maybe
...
to a nominal sum, the defendants were entitled to a verdict and judgment on liability
...
is to be
...
Pamplin*
...
at p.
...
Simon Brown LJ where
...
es it as irrelevant and the
...
amplin* direction
...
most unhelpful". With respect to the learned
...
Justice, this shows a serious
...
on his part in the understanding of the issues in a defamation action
...
the correct treatment of the question of a plaintiff who has been defamed but shown by admissible evidence to have a defective character. In so far as the
...
Lord Justice in
...
same passage comments upon the facts
...
expresses his own view
...
of the jury
www.casemine.com · 2003-07-14rahams (
...
) | [2003] EMLR 32 | Privy Council | Judgment | Law | Case
...
**CITES
**CITED BY**VISUAL
Privy Council
* **Gleaner Company Ltd & Anor v. Abrahams (Jamaica)Privy CouncilJul 14, 2003
* Full
Judgment
* Subsequent
References
* CaseIQ
(AI Recommendations)
Gleaner Company Ltd & Anor v. Abrahams (Jamaica)
(Jul 14, 2003)Copy Cite
[2003] EMLR 32[2003] 3 WLR 1038[2004] AC 628[2004] 1 AC 628[2003] UKPC 55
Case Information
**CITATION CODES**
**
**ATTORNEY(S)
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
# Gleaner Company Ltd & Anor v. Abrahams (Jamaica)
...
Smart Summary (Beta)****
## Facts:
...
* In 1983, the US Internal Revenue Service seized papers belonging to Mr. Robin Moore during an investigation into tax evasion suspicions.
...
1986, Moore pleaded guilty to tax avoidance and agreed to assist federal authorities in
...
investigation into payments by Young & Rubicam.
...
* Moore's statements implicated Anthony Abrahams, Jamaica's former Tourism Minister, in a kickback scheme involving American businessmen.
...
* The Daily Gleaner published a story implying Abrahams' involvement, which led to the collapse of his tourism consultancy business.
...
* Abrahams filed a defamation lawsuit against The Gleaner Company Ltd.
* The jury awarded J$80.7 million in damages to Abrahams.
...
* The Court of Appeal set aside the jury's award and substituted it with J$35 million, citing excessive damages.## Issues:
...
1. Whether the damages awarded by the jury were excessive.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in substituting the damages awarded.
## Holding:
...
* The Court of Appeal held that the J$80.7 million awarded by the jury was excessive and substituted it with J$35 million.
...
* The Court found that the substituted amount was necessary to compensate Abrahams and protect his reputation.## Rationale:
...
* The Court of Appeal considered the excessive nature of the jury's award and the need to balance compensation with protecting the plaintiff's reputation.
...
* The Court emphasized that the substituted amount was sufficient to vindicate Abrahams and deter similar defamatory conduct.
...
* The Court rejected comparisons with personal injury awards and emphasized the unique nature of defamation actions in determining damages.
...
* The Court acknowledged the chilling effect of the awarded amount on irresponsible journalism and upheld the substitution of damages.## Conclusion:
...
* The Court of Appeal's decision to substitute the damages awarded by the jury with J$35 million in the defamation case brought by Anthony Abrahams against The Gleaner Company Ltd was upheld.
...
* The Court found the substituted amount to be reasonable, necessary for compensation, and conducive to deterring defamatory conduct.
...
* The appeal was dismissed with costs in favor of the defendant, The Gleaner Company Ltd.
...
Click here to read the full judgment
international.vlex.comUKPC 36 (5 October 2005); [2006] 1 AC 427, [2006] 2 WLR 39, [2006] AC 427.
...
The appellant, while Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, made statements about a well-known businessman that
...
widely broadcast. The appellant
...
, since they were an
...
not to be considered defamatory of the respondent under section 4(e) of the Constitution. The Judicial Committee of
...
the Privy Council held that section 4(e) did not provide an absolute bar against claims of defamation and the appeal
...
was dismissed.
...
On May 3
...
of 1997, the Prime
...
, made a
...
at a large
...
At trial, the judge held that the appellant’s words were defamatory and that the ordinary listener would have
...
an advantage over
...
had intended that the remarks be republished all across Trinidad and Tobago and abroad. Large damages were
...
awarded as a result
...
At the Court of Appeal, the majority upheld the judge’s conclusions on liability. At this stage, the appellant raised a
...
4(e) should not have
...
it was too late to raise this defence but still rejected it, holding that the right to express political views was not an
...
absolute right. The court however reduced the damages awarded by the trial judge.
...
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal and held that
...
there was no absolute and unqualified right to express political views under section 4(e). This would be in conflict
...
with and override the law of defamation which existed at the time of independence. The statements were therefore
...
held to be defamatory of the respondent and the appeal was dismissed.
...
The issue before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) was (i) whether section 4(e) of the Constitution
...
of Trinidad and Tobago provided an absolute right to express political views and made them immune from
...
defamation claims; and ii) whether the award of damages made was appropriate for the harm alleged.
...
On the first issue, the JCPC considered the wording of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution. Section 4(e) of the
...
is within the section protecting
...
. It says that
...
), also within
...
. The appellant argued that section 4(e) had the purpose of granting to citizens an absolute and
...
The JCPC held that though the right to express political views was critical in all democracies, the common law had
...
protected against defamation before Trinidad and Tobago’s independence and this had been saved by the new
...
Constitution. An absolute right to express political views would be in conflict with and override the law of
...
defamation. Without limits, it would mean that it would remove the care that should be exercised to prevent
...
defamatory statements to the wider public. As a result, the decision was to be one made by the courts as to the balance
...
to be struck between this right and other rights. The statement by the appellant was therefore held to be defamatory
...
and the appellant was liable to the respondent.
...
On the second issue of the award for damages, the appellant argued that the award was too large considering that no
...
allegation of bribery or corruption, no evidence of tangible losses, and no evidence of psychiatric injury was claimed.
...
The JCPC held that the Court of Appeal, in reducing the earlier damages but still awarding a high sum, considered
...
all that was necessary when making the determination and that the sum awarded was fair and appropriate.
...
Based on the above, the JCPC held that there was no absolute and unqualified right to express political views under
...
section 4(e) of the Constitution. This would be in conflict with and override the law of defamation which existed at
...
the time of independence. The statements were therefore held to be defamatory of the respondent. The award made
...
by the Court of Appeal to compensate the appellant was also held to be appropriate. As a result, the appeal was
...
dismissed with costs.
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| --- | --- |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Judge | Rajkumar JA |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2023 CA 82 |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No. P215 of 2019 |
...
contends in effect that the statements were all clearly defamatory of
...
corrupt and criminal conduct
...
had benefitted.
...
had a devastating impact
...
gravity of such impact.
...
The trial judge found that the first and second statements constituted a serious defamation but declined to consider the statements subsequent to the filing of the
claim form except for the purpose of damages. Despite so doing she yet found that all of the subsequent statements bore the defamatory meanings pleaded. She awarded the amount of $525,000 in compensatory damages for hurt feelings and loss of reputation, and, unusually, made a separate award of $250,000.00 in respect of aggravated damages. She declined to make an award of exemplary damages
The appellant appeals the finding of liability in respect of the first and second statements. The respondent cross appeals contending that the subsequent statements should have been considered on the issue of liability, and though not seeking an increase in the compensatory damages awarded, contends that i] the judge's award should be maintained once the subsequent posts are considered and ii] an award of exemplary damages should also have been made.
...
the eight other
...
- [
...
As to issue i] in
...
to the first statement the words complained of did not bear a meaning defamatory of the
...
that bore a meaning that
...
, although in their proper context
...
>
> iii] in relation to issue number two subsequent posts which had been introduced by re-amendment to the statement of
...
could have been considered by the trial judge on the issue of liability. If they were being considered by reference to whether they justified an uplift in the quantum of damages, they needed to be analysed as to whether in fact they all actually bore meanings defamatory of the respondent.
...
>
> iv] none of those subsequent posts however was defamatory of the respondent.
>
> v] the award of the trial judge could not be justified. It was based upon a misapprehension that all the publications, including the first, were defamatory and that the subsequent publications were all referable to the respondent and bore the meanings pleaded by him. Further it was based upon the conclusion that the second publication referred to the claimant/respondent's family when the ordinary reasonable reader would not have so concluded.
...
>
> vi] The trial judge therefore took into account hurt feelings by the respondent exacerbated by a. an erroneous belief by him and his family that they were included as subjects of the second statement and b. the erroneous belief by the respondent and his family that he was the subject of all the subsequent publications when the reasonable objective reader would not have so concluded, c. an erroneous belief by the respondent and his family that all the publications were defamatory of him.
...
>
> vii] In the circumstances i) the trial judge misconstrued the evidence, ii) the award as outside the reasonable range of awards for defamation of this nature, and iii) an award of such magnitude could only serve to have a chilling effect on the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and freedom and the right to express political views.
>
> For all the reasons above the award could not be justified and neither could any further award of exemplary damages.
...
Orders
8
i] The Orders of the trial judge are set aside.
> ii] The appellant is to pay to the respondent damages in respect of the second statement in the sum of $10,000.00.