The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled that there was no justification for the Court of Appeal to increase a $4.5M award made by a trial judge in a libel case won against Kaieteur News to $15M and has ordered that the original sum be paid over.
The ruling was made in an appeal and cross appeal involving Dr. Walter Ramsahoye and Kaieteur News publisher Glen Lall and the National Media and Publishing Company Limited.
Ramsahoye had filed a libel lawsuit in February, 2000, following publications in the Kaieteur News which he said caused damage to his reputation. An award of $4.5M was made in December, 2008, in his favour. Both Lall and Ramsahoye were dissatisfied with the judgment and filed appeals in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal later awarded Dr. Ramsahoye $12M in general damages and $3M in aggravated damages. This resulted in an appeal to the CCJ by Lall, who argued that there was no justification for the substantial increase. Ramsahoye later filed a cross appeal, in which he argued that the second award was too low and that it should be in line with similar awards in Caribbean territories.
“The trial judge had properly taken account of the aggravating and mitigating factors. There was no basis for awarding special damages as they were neither pleaded nor proved. The Court was not convinced that there was any legal basis for ensuring awards of damages accord with those in other Caribbean jurisdictions. Further, it would not increase the award simply on account of the currency’s depreciation,” the court said in its ruling, which is now available on the CCJ website.
Lall was represented by attorneys Sanjeev Datadin and Stephen Singh, while a team of lawyers, including Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan and attorney Roopnarine Satram, were on record for Ramsahoye.
According to the court’s judgement summary, the appeal and cross-appeal concern the sole issue of whether the increase in the award of damages for libel from $4.5 million to $15 million by the Court of Appeal was appropriate, having regard to the reputational damage suffered by Ramsahoye.
It was stated that the dispute arose from the publication of an article and two caricatures with accompanying captions between January 21, 2000 and February 10, 2000 by the Appellants.
Ramsahoye claimed damages on the ground that the publications depicted him in disparaging terms, causing injury to his character and professional reputation, making him the subject of public ridicule, odium and contempt, and occasioning him great distress and humiliation, the document said.
It was stated that on December 4, 2008, “Persaud J” found that the publications were libellous and awarded damages of $4.5 million, which he expressed to be the highest such award in Guyana at the time, and costs of $125,000. The judge, it was stated, also made permanent the injunction granted by “Kissoon J” in March, 2000, restraining further writing, printing, publication or circulation of the same or similarly defamatory materials. The Appellants obtained a stay of execution pending appeal, on condition that the judgment sum was paid into court. The sum was paid in on April 6, 2009.
Subsequently, Ramsahoye appealed to the Court of Appeal against the quantum of damages and Lall and National Media and Publishing Company Limited cross-appealed against both liability and the award of damages but at the hearing, the issue of liability was abandoned as the appellants conceded that “the publications were defamatory.”
The summary noted that the Court of Appeal, by majority (Roy JA and Insanally J (Additional Judge)), subsequently set aside the award of $4.5 million, determining that it was ‘wholly inadequate’ to compensate Ramsahoye, and substituted an award of $15 million. “Cummings-Edwards JA dissented on the basis that there was no justification for disturbing the award as Persaud J had taken a balanced view of all the circumstances of the case,” the summary stated.
It said that the Appellants appealed to the CCJ on the ground that the substantial increase in the award was unjustified. “Alleging error by the Court of Appeal, they noted the absence of a finding of perversity or fundamental violation of legal principles by Persaud J; the failure of the award to take into account socio-economic factors, specifically, the low Gross Domestic Product of Guyana; the absence of evidence of specific injury to the Respondent; Kaieteur News’ tabloid status; and the trend towards more modest awards of damages including in personal injury case,” it added.
For his part, Ramsahoye contended that the Court of Appeal’s award was too low. He complained of the court’s failure to expressly find a case for punitive and/or aggravated damages. He also urged that in assessing damages, a court should have regard to awards made in other territories and, in particular, Caribbean jurisdictions. Dr Ramsahoye also cited as an error the failure to award interest.
Fresh evidence
Prior to the hearing of the appeal, Ramsahoye sought to adduce fresh evidence in a February 17, 2014 publication in the Kaieteur News, which he alleged was defamatory of him. The Court dismissed the application for failure to comply with the conditions for admission of fresh evidence.
In disposing of the appeal and cross-appeal, the CCJ reiterated the well-established principle that “to justify reversing a trial judge, it is not sufficient that the appellate court itself would have awarded a greater or lesser sum. Instead, it must be shown that the trial judge acted on a wrong principle of law, misapprehended the facts, or had, for these or other reasons, made an award as extremely high or low as to make it a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages to which the defamed person is entitled.”
It was stated too that where the appellate court does decide to interfere and does vary the award, the CCJ, as the apex Court, would review the decision of the Court of Appeal on the basis of whether it conforms to the well-established test for interference with the trial judge’s assessment of damages.
The summary said that the CCJ held that the trial judge’s award can only be disturbed where it is an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages that ought to have been awarded to the person who was defamed.
“The CCJ found it difficult, on Persaud J’s reasoning which carefully weighed all relevant considerations on the materials before him, to find any error which would warrant a variation of the award. It also noted the Kaieteur News’ restricted reach and general principles concerning the awarding of damages in justifying assessment of the damages in accordance with the law, practice and traditions of Guyana as opposed to merely comparing with awards from other jurisdictions with different socio-economic conditions,” the judgment summary said.
As a result, the appeal was allowed and the cross appeal and consequential orders sought were dismissed, save that “the sum of $4.5 (with interest accured thereon) lodged on the order of Cummings-Edwards JA dated 27th February, 2009 and representing the damages awarded by the High Court must be paid to the respondent.”
