Former West Indies captain, Sir Clive Lloyd, has lost a defamation suit he had filed against the Guyana Chronicle a year ago, and has been ordered to pay the newspaper company costs in the sum of $750,000.
In his ruling delivered earlier this month, High Court Judge Navindra Singh, noted that the words complained of by Lloyd were incapable of defaming or bringing his character into disrepute as claimed.
In dismissing the action, Justice Singh described it as “frivolous and a gross waste of judicial resources.”
Lloyd was seeking damages against the Chronicle for an article it published back in March of 2021, bearing the headline “Holder has outlived his usefulness in the position, says Lloyd.”
As part of that article was a paragrah which read, “Cricket legend, Clive Lloyd, believe the man he installed as West Indies captain some six years ago, has outlived his usefulness in the position. Holder is no longer a shoo-in for the role that brings grist to my mill. I’m sure Jason is not the guy who will say I’ve got a bad deal or raw deal.”
In its statement of defence the Guyana Chronicle contended that the words complained of are not defamatory to the Claimant and in any event he did not suffer any loss or harm to his reputation as a result of the publication.
Lloyd’s contention was that the words attributed to him in the article conveyed to readers that he held the belief that Holder was no longer useful to the West Indies cricket team as its captain and he supported Holder’s removal as captain.
The cricket legend’s claim is that this made him out to be a person who is “intemperate, hostile, mean- spirited, unfriendly, disloyal, disrespectful, malevolent and unduly intrusive into the affairs of West Indies cricket.”
It is this portrayal of his character, that Lloyd contended was defamatory.
In analyzing the legal issues, however, the Court said it was not.
Justice Singh pointed out that the published article was based on an “apparent misinterpretation” by the newspaper’s sports writer, of an article read on the web.
That Earl Best article the Judge noted in his ruling, was “apparently” based on a call made by Lloyd to the programme “Mason & Guest,” where a discussion was ongoing and included the fact that the West Indies cricket team had just defeated Bangladesh in a test series where another player, Kraigg Braithwaite, was the captain.
On that programme, Lloyd was asked his opinion about whether Jason Holder should be replaced by Braithwaite as captain of the team.
Justice Singh’s written ruling seen by this newspaper, noted that in the course of his comments, in answering the question, Lloyd stated that he played a part in getting Holder as captain; while going on to further state, “It’s obvious that Kraigg would be slightly ahead of Jason. And I’m sure Jason is not the guy who will say, oh, you know, I’ve got a bad deal or a raw deal.’’
Justice Singh said he did not find those words to be capable of being defamatory of Holder.
The Judge reasoned that the words, whether uttered by the Claimant or not, simply convey a view that Holder was no longer the best option to be captain of the West Indies cricket team and it was based on the fact that Braithwaite had just led the team successfully in a test series against Bangladesh.
This Justice Singh said, is important in considering whether the words being attributed to Lloyd can result in his character being defamed.
He said that considering further, the actual words, it is noted that the Claimant complains that he did not utter the words ‘’Holder is no longer a shoo-in for the role that brings grist to my mill;” but did, however admit to saying, “It’s obvious that Kraig would be slightly ahead of Jason” in answer to a direct question as to whether he would make Braithwaite captain.
The Court reasoned that it is “indisputable that both statements convey the same view, that Holder was no longer an (automatic choice) for the role of captain;” while adding that “in fact the actual words spoken by the Claimant is more likely to be interpreted to mean that he preferred Braithwaite to Holder than the words published.”
Justice Singh said that this is important because “it seems that the Claimant’s concern is that the language attributed to him is intemperate, [that is, language showing lack of self-control], hostile and unfriendly.”
The Judge said that two other statements complained of are clearly not intended quotes of the Claimant’s words. These are the headline ‘“Holder has outlived his usefulness in the position, says Lloyd” and the words “Cricket legend, Clive Lloyd, believe the man he installed as West Indies captain some six years ago, has outlived his usefulness in the position.”
The Judge said that Lloyd himself acknowledged that he “played a part in getting Jason as captain.”
On this point, Justice Singh said that though the remaining words may be an exaggerated statement of his actual opinion, that is to say—his opinion was that Holder was not an automatic choice as captain—as opposed to Holder should no longer be a choice for captain, it does not amount to defamation of the Claimant’s character.
The Judge surmised that “it’s simply the writer’s interpretation of what the Claimant’s actual words meant.”
Against this background, Justuce Singh went on to state, “and frankly speaking, when one considers that the Claimant stated “I’m sure Jason is not the guy who will say I’ve got a bad deal or raw deal” [though he seemed to want to deny that he uttered those words under cross examination], it is not a very exaggerated interpretation of his words.
“Logically, the Claimant could only be saying that Jason would not say he got a raw deal should he not be retained as captain,” the Judge said.
Justice Singh said that in “applying common sense” to the facts and in deferrance to a number case law authorities cited, he found that the words published and complained of are “incapable of being defamatory or bringing the Claimant’s character into disrepute.”
Further, he said that the misquoting of Lloyd is not actionable as defamation under the facts presented; while specifically adding that he had failed or in fact not attempted to prove that he suffered any damage or loss as a result of the publication.
“In fact he testified that to his knowledge no one believed that he made those statements;” the Court pointed out.
In all the circumstances, Justice Singh said the publications complained of are not defamatory while calling the action “frivolous and a gross waste of judicial resources.”
In dismissing the claim, the Judge has ordered Lloyd to pay the Guyana Chronicle costs in the sum of $750,000 no later than November 30th of this year.
Lloyd was represnted by attorneys Stephen Fraser SC, Ralph Thorne KC and Shantel Scott-Lall.
Meanwhile, the Chronicle was represented by attorney Ronald Burch-Smith.
