Former Executive Director of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited, (NICIL), Winston Brassington, has won another lawsuit against the Kaieteur News (KN) for defamatory statements it published about him back in 2014.
But on this occasion, Brassington has been awarded only $2 million in damages—lower than the amount he has been previously awarded in similar actions he brought against Kaieteur News, its owner Glenn Lall and then editor, Adam Harris.
Back in February of this year he was awarded $10 million and mere months before—in September—he was awarded over $18 million in what has been a series of defamation suits against the newspaper company.
High Court Judge Fidela Corbin-Lincoln who has been the presiding judge in some of the matters, has said that the Court needed to take into consideration that the actions were all related, and that Brassington’s evidence did not disclose that he suffered any additional loss and damage over and above that which was occasioned from the other publications.
In her ruling yesterday on this latest action, the judge said that in fact Brassington’s witness statement in the instant case is almost identical to that filed in the other cases, while adding that “the objective of an award of damages in defamation is to compensate, rather than penalize.
In the circumstances, the judge said she found that the previous award of damages for words of similar effect which were published in close proximity, should operate as a form of mitigation of damages.
Having regard to all the factors—aggravating and mitigating—Justice Corbin-Lincoln assessed damages in the sum of $2,000,000.
Meanwhile, Kaieteur News was ordered to pay court costs in the sum of $150,000.
Justice Corbin-Lincoln ruled that certain words published by KN against Brassington were in fact defamatory.
Brassington (the Plaintiff) through his attorney Timothy Jonas, had complained that in the March 16th, 2014 edition, the Kaieteur News and Harris (the Defendants), published in the column, “Dem boys seh,” words pertaining to him which defamed his character. One of the columns related to the Marriott Hotel.
Brassington had averred that the words meant and were understood to mean that he was “dishonest, had been guilty of criminal activity and was habitually guilty of criminal activity and ought to be imprisoned.”
The newspaper company through its attorney Nigel Hughes admitted publication of the column but denied that the words complained of were: (a) of, or pertaining to Brassington (the Plaintiff) (b) were published maliciously or falsely or (c) libelous to the Plaintiff personally or professionally. The defence sought to argue that the words were justified, of fair comment on a matter of public interest and that in the alternative; they were published on an occasion of qualified privilege. In the circumstances, they relied on corresponding defences.
Justice Corbin-Lincoln noted in her ruling that in response to interrogatories filed by the plaintiff, the defendants admitted that it printed and published verbatim the words averred in the statements of claim; that the plaintiff was at all material times engaged in the project for construction of the Marriott Hotel; and that Harris intended the words complained of in the defamatory article to refer to Brassington and intended a reasonable person reading it to infer that those words referred to him.
Among the issues determined by the Court were whether the words were capable of a defamatory meaning; whether the defendants were justified in using them; and whether they were protected by the defences raised.
The Court noted that the defendants led no evidence at the trial.
On the first issue, referencing case law authority, the judge said that the plaintiff is admittedly referred to in the publications as “Brazzy” and that the alleged reference to him associating with thieves and should be imprisoned is informal English and connoted the meaning that he is a person who is dishonest or a criminal.
The use of the word she added suggests disparagement and reasoned that is therefore capable of being defamatory.
Brassington in his statement of claim argued that the words meant or were understood to mean “that the Plaintiff was dishonest, had been guilty of criminal activity and was habitually guilty of criminal activity and had engaged in criminal fraud for personal gain and in the conduct of his offices.”
On the issue of the defences raised by the Kaieteur News, Justice Corbin-Lincoln said that the defence of fair comment was “badly drafted and deficient,” and that the facts upon which the defence was placed, were neither pleaded nor particularized.
The matter or matters of public interest on which the comments were made she said, were not identified. “The particulars of the comment relied upon as constituting the defence is not set out. In fact the defence of fair comment fails on the pleadings alone. In addition, the defendants led no evidence whatsoever. The defendants have failed to establish the defence,” the judge declared.
The Court noted, too, that the defence is bereft of any particulars in support of the plea of privilege and that that plea failed on the pleadings alone, while again noting that the defendants also led no evidence and therefore that defence fails.
