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.

Thursday, February 20, 2025

Social media influencer loses defamation case against attorney

by

21 days ago
20250130

DEREK ACHONG

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

Con­trac­tor and so­cial me­dia in­flu­encer Shane Ma­habirs­ingh has lost his defama­tion law­suit against an at­tor­ney, who he blamed for his le­gal de­feat in a law­suit with a for­mer cus­tomer.

De­liv­er­ing a de­ci­sion yes­ter­day morn­ing, High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad up­held an ap­pli­ca­tion to strike out Ma­habirs­ingh's case against at­tor­ney Is­sa Jones.

The law­suit in­volv­ing Ma­habirs­ingh and Jones stemmed from a sep­a­rate defama­tion law­suit brought by Jones' clients against Ma­habirs­ingh.

In that case, Jones' clients claimed that Ma­habirs­ingh de­famed them in a se­ries of so­cial me­dia posts on his pop­u­lar page Bil­da Boyz Con­struc­tion Ser­vices Lim­it­ed.

Jones' clients en­tered in­to a con­tract with Ma­habirs­ingh and his com­pa­ny for con­struc­tion ser­vices. Af­ter they ter­mi­nat­ed the con­tract with­out it be­ing com­plet­ed, the cou­ple pur­sued lit­i­ga­tion.

They al­leged that Ma­habirs­ingh utilised his Face­book page to tar­nish their rep­u­ta­tions af­ter their case was filed.

The cou­ple suc­cess­ful­ly ob­tained a de­fault judg­ment in the defama­tion case af­ter Ma­habirs­ingh failed to at­tend a hear­ing.

Ma­habirs­ingh then suc­cess­ful­ly ap­plied to have the de­fault judg­ment against him and his com­pa­ny set aside. That case is still pend­ing

In his sub­se­quent law­suit against Jones, Ma­habirs­ingh al­leged that Jones wrong­ly claimed that he had served the case and in­formed him of the date of the hear­ing to ob­tain the de­fault judg­ment.

In ap­ply­ing to strike out the case be­fore it went to tri­al, Jones' lawyer Farai Hove Ma­sai­sai claimed that Ma­habirs­ingh had no ba­sis to pur­sue the case.

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad agreed.

"It is ev­i­dent that the words com­plained of in the af­fi­davit are not defam­a­to­ry as the af­fi­davit mere­ly re­cit­ed the cir­cum­stances rel­a­tive to ser­vice as was told to the at­tor­ney by the process serv­er," Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said.

While Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said he re­spect­ed the fact that Ma­habirs­ingh sought to rep­re­sent him­self in his law­suit, he said that he was con­strained to de­ter­mine the case based on the law and op­er­a­tive facts.

Stat­ing that Ma­habirs­ingh clear­ly filed the case with­out seek­ing prop­er le­gal ad­vice, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said: "Se­ri­ous thought should al­ways be giv­en be­fore one de­cides to ap­proach the Court in per­son as lawyers play a crit­i­cal role and their val­ue and ad­vice should not be dis­re­gard­ed.

"Just as one would not typ­i­cal­ly op­er­ate up­on one's self if there was a med­ical is­sue, so too cit­i­zens should ex­er­cise cau­tion and avoid as best as pos­si­ble from ap­proach­ing the court with­out the ben­e­fit of le­gal guid­ance," he added.

As part of his de­ci­sion, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad or­dered Ma­habirs­ingh to pay Jones $10,650 in le­gal costs for his failed case.

Jones was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Chelsea Ed­wards.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored