Finding among other things that his defence has “no real prospect of succeeding,” a judge has refused the application of Dr. Leslie Ramsammy to set aside a default judgment in the libel suit brought against him by former General Manager of the National Communications Network (NCN) Enrico Woolford.
In her recent ruling, High Court Judge Fidela Corbin-Lincoln said that the obligation to show that a defence has real prospects of success was not satisfied as Ramsammy merely exhibited a draft defence, which she said is a separate mandatory requirement the Civil Procedure Rules.
Referencing numerous case law and other legal authorities, the judge said that an applicant must not only exhibit a draft defence but must also file an affidavit setting out the evidence being relied on, in support of the application.
The affidavit evidence, she went on to say in her written ruling, must include sufficient particulars to satisfy the court that the applicant has a meritorious defence and the applicant must lead some evidence of the facts on which the defence will be established on its merits.
In the circumstance, the Court said it found that Ramsammy (the Applicant), had failed to provide evidence to show that he has a defence with a real prospect of success.
Ramsammy, Advisor to the Minister of Health, was seeking to set aside a default judgment, claiming that he was unaware of Woolford’s action against him, since he had never been personally served.
Early last year, Woolford sued Ramsammy, the Guyana Times newspaper and the Times Media Group jointly and severally, seeking in excess of $185 million in total for libelous statements about him that he said were contained in a column by Ramsammy that was published by the Guyana Times newspaper on March 18, 2020, under the headline “Ramsammy’s Ruminations: Caricom, ABCE, Commonwealth, OAS – time for sanctions now, no more patience.”
In August, Justice Corbin-Lincoln granted Woolford judgment in default for Ramsammy’s failure to file a defence.
The Court has not yet assessed damages on the default judgment and the final award could be significantly less than the amount claimed by Woolford.
Ramsammy, in his application, had advanced that while court records reflect the several attempts made at effecting service on him, the exercise was unsuccessful for one reason or the other, which resulted in him never being personally served.
He also acknowledged Woolford’s attempt at substituted notice of service by placing advertisements in the Stabroek News.
His explanation for being unaware of service through that medium, however, was that he does not subscribe to the actual delivery of newspapers to his home or office, since he is of the view that “the newspapers themselves are sources of infection” of the coronavirus.
He would then argue that he was unaware of the advertisements placed in the newspapers, because of his “busy schedule.”
Ramsammy’s ultimate contention was that his failure to file a defence, was because he was never personally served with Woolford’s claim, and that he had only been “recently” advised by his attorney Nirvan Singh, that advertisements had actually been placed in the Stabroek News and that a default judgment had been granted against him.
In allowing Woolford the use of substituted service, however, Justice Corbin-Lincoln said that the judge who so granted had to have been satisfied that sufficient steps were taken to attempt service or to attempt to locate the person to be served and that the method of substituted service could reasonably be expected to bring the document to Ramsammy’s attention.
She said that in fact it would appear that substituted service “was so effective” that the publication of the proceedings were brought to his attention by his lawyer.
But what Ramsammy did not state, the judge said, was when the publications were brought to his attention.
She noted that he vaguely stated that he had been “recently” advised by his attorneys that the advertisement of the claim appeared in the Stabroek News.
The judge said he did not state whether the publications were brought to his attention before or after the time for filing a defence elapsed. If it was brought to his attention before the time for filing a defence had elapsed, she said that the question would then arise “what prevented him from filing a defence?”
“In my view evidence of this nature is very important to a determination of whether there is a reasonable explanation for failing to file a defence within the time fixed in the publication,” Justice Corbin-Lincoln said.
In the absence of such evidence, the judge said she was not satisfied that Ramsammy had provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file his defence within the time fixed in the publication.
Against this background, the judge said it had not been disputed that Woolford’s claim was served by publication as ordered, that the he was entitled to the reliefs sought based on the facts alleged in his statement of claim and that there was no pending application by Ramsammy.
“The requirements for entering default judgment were therefore satisfied,” she declared.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration and weighing all the factors, Justice Corbin-Lincoln said she refuses Ramsammy’s application to set aside the default judgment, while ordering him to pay Woolford fixed costs in the sum of $30,000.
Following the grant of the default judgment, Woolford’s attorney, Eusi Anderson, had said that his client tried to bring the proceedings to Ramsammy’s attention, both through personal service and substituted service but in both situations incurred tremendous expense, while advancing that that Ramsammy had been “evading service by concealing himself in his home and office.”
Woolford, who described himself in his statement of claim as a media and communications professional for over 30 years with international, regional and local repute, had sought a total of over $85 million in damages from Ramsammy for the print and online publications containing the statements made about him as well as $50 million in damages from the newspaper and the Times Group for same.
In addition to damages, Woolford also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from not only again publishing the offensive words, but any other words/statements of a similar nature which are defamatory of him.
He also sought to have the court grant a mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to forthwith permanently remove the column in question, from the online edition of Guyana Times newspapers and for them to publish a retraction and apology.
Woolford said that the statements in the column were false, malicious, defamatory, and impugn his character and reputation.
