JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, March 16, 2025

Judges to decide if Express will have to pay Stuart $.5M for defamation

by

Jensen La Vende
Yesterday
20250315
Energy Minister Stuart Young

Energy Minister Stuart Young

Se­nior Re­porter

jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt

 

Ap­peal Court Judges Nolan Bereaux, James Aboud and Mark Mo­hammed yes­ter­day re­served their judg­ment in a case brought by Trinidad Ex­press, which was or­dered to pay in­com­ing Prime Min­is­ter Stu­art Young over $500,000 two years ago.

In Oc­to­ber 2023, High Court Judge Bet­sy Ann Lam­bert Pe­ter­son award­ed Young $375,000, plus in­ter­est at a rate of 2.5 per cent per an­num, from 2019 to when the judg­ment was hand­ed down. She al­so award­ed Young ag­gra­vat­ed and ex­em­plary dam­ages in the sum of $125,000 and costs to­talling $71,500.

The judg­ment came af­ter Young sued the news­pa­per for defama­tion when his im­age was used in an ad­ver­tise­ment, cap­tioned “24 scan­dals in 24 months.”

In pre­sent­ing their case, at­tor­ney for One Caribbean Me­dia, un­der which the Trinidad Ex­press falls, Faa­rees Ho­sein, said the tri­al judge erred in ac­cept­ing the dic­tio­nary mean­ing of the word scan­dal and did not con­sid­er the to­tal­i­ty of the ad. He said while it could have a defam­a­to­ry mean­ing, it was not the news­pa­per’s re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to ver­i­fy the con­tents of the ad, as it was not an ar­ti­cle, which car­ries spe­cif­ic guide­lines when it comes to pub­lish­ing.

With the coun­try ready­ing it­self for a gen­er­al elec­tion, Ho­sein said po­lit­i­cal ads would be used and ques­tioned if me­dia hous­es were now sup­posed to ver­i­fy every­thing con­tained in said ads be­fore pub­lish­ing.

Aboud ques­tioned Ho­sein on why the ad was used, with Ho­sein say­ing the news­pa­per did not ac­cept or adopt the ad in part or in whole and ought not to be held li­able, not­ing there was a dis­claimer stat­ing the ad was po­lit­i­cal­ly mo­ti­vat­ed and tar­get­ed.

In re­sponse, Young’s at­tor­ney, Col­in Kan­ga­loo, said there was no de­fence against the defama­tion his client faced.

He said the ad was not in the pub­lic’s in­ter­est and sub­mit­ted that the ve­rac­i­ty of the claim made in the ad­ver­tise­ment was dis­missed in an ar­ti­cle car­ried in the very same news­pa­per weeks ear­li­er.

To bol­ster his point, he quot­ed tri­al Judge Pe­ter­son say­ing: “The com­ment must be a mat­ter of pub­lic in­ter­est. Mat­ters of pol­i­tics and gov­ern­ment are usu­al­ly mat­ters of pub­lic in­ter­est, giv­en that the con­tents of the pub­li­ca­tion are not ac­cu­rate. And this was known to the de­fen­dant pri­or to the pub­li­ca­tion of the ad­ver­tise­ment. The in­for­ma­tion in the ad­ver­tise­ment could not have been a mat­ter of pub­lic in­ter­est. It is in the pub­lic that the rep­u­ta­tion of pub­lic trust should not be de­based false­ly. In the in­stant case, it would not be in the pub­lic in­ter­est to know­ing­ly pub­lish the ad­ver­tise­ment con­tain­ing false in­for­ma­tion.”

Af­ter tak­ing a few min­utes to con­sult, the Ap­pel­late Judges said they need­ed time to con­sid­er the case and gave be­tween May and June as a time­frame fo rul­ing.

By that time, Young will be prime min­is­ter, as he will be sworn in on Mon­day af­ter Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley demits of­fice to­mor­row.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored