Trinidad and Tobago in the High Court of Justice Cv

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2006-02092 HCA #1386 of 2003 BETWEEN CONRAD ALEONG Claimant AND TRINIDAD EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED Limited CRAIG REYNALD, SUNITY MAHARAJ & CAMINI MARAJH Defendants Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Bereaux Appearances: Russel Martineau SC, & Ian Benjamin for the claimant Alvin FitzPatrick SC, & Faarees Hosein for defendants REASONS Introduction [1] On 16 th April, 2009, in an oral judgment, I granted judgment for the claimant, holding that he had been libelled by the defendants in respect of seven of eight articles published between 6 th April, 2003 and May 3 rd , 2003. I awarded the sum of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($450,000.00) general damages with interest at 12% from the date of the writ as well as exemplary damages in the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00). I found that one article, an editorial published on 20 th April, 2003, constituted fair comment. The oral judgment, though summarily given, was taken from a fully handwritten script, not all of which was read Page 1 of 96 out but which now forms the basis of my reasons for decision which I now set out hereunder. [2] The claimant contended that eight (8) articles published by the first defendant, the Trinidad Express Newspapers Limited, were defamatory of him. The publications were made on successive Sundays over five weeks from April 6, 2003 to May 4, 2003. He was then the president and chief executive officer of the now defunct BWIA (West Indies) Limited (“BWIA”), which was described as the national airline of Trinidad and Tobago. BWIA was a public company listed on the Trinidad and Tobago Stock Exchange. The government of Trinidad and Tobago owned forty-nine per cent of its shares. [3] The articles in question were seven articles researched and written by the fourth defendant and printed and published in the Sunday Express over the period in question, headlined as follows; (i) “How BWIA’s flight plan went off course” dated Sunday April 6, 2003 (‘the first article’). (ii) “BWIA fighting to stay in the air” dated Sunday April 13, 2003 (“the second article”). (iii) “Aleong’s Pay Deal” dated Sunday April 13, 2004 (“the third article”) (iv) “BWIA $m bailout, but …” dated Sunday April 20, 2003 (“the fourth article”) (v) “BWIA’s Board blanks Government… demands Manning’s bailout plan in writing” dated April 27, 2003 (“the fifth article”) (vi) “BWIA Board to meet Government on Tuesday” dated May 4, 2003 (“the sixth article”). Page 2 of 96 (vii) “Fat cows can’t fly” dated Sunday May 4, 2003 (“the seventh article”). [4] The other article was in fact an editorial captioned “Passing the BWIA buck”, published in the Sunday Express on 20 th April, 2003 and was written by Mr. Maxie Cuffie, who was then head of news at TV6, a television broadcasting station owned and operated by the parent company of the first defendant. [5] The articles concerned the claimant’s stewardship of BWIA, an airline company then majority owned by the government of Trinidad and Tobago. The airline, which had a history of financial dependency on the government of Trinidad and Tobago, had once again approached the government for financial assistance and its future was the subject of much public debate. [6] The defendants raised qualified privilege as their main defence. This defence is now governed by the decision of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999] 3 WLR 1010. The defence of qualified privilege arises only after the articles are found to be defamatory. The Reynolds Privilege defence seeks to strike a balance between competing public interest concerns, the protection of the reputation of the individual and, the right of the press to publish (and the right of the public to receive) frank and unrestricted information from a particular source. [7] The balance is struck by seeking to adhere to a standard of responsible journalism. This requires that a court first consider whether the publication was in the public interest. In matters of public interest, it is now to be accepted, as a general proposition of law, that there is a professional duty on the part of journalists to impart information to the public and an interest in the public receiving it. (per Lord Hoffman in Jameel & Others v The Wall Street Journal Europe spr [2007] 1A C 359). Once such a public interest is established, those duties are taken as existing and the court then has to consider, whether, on the facts of the particular case, the maker of the publication (and to a lesser extent the publisher) had acted responsibly, taking into account certain guidelines and considerations. Page 3 of 96 [8] I found the seven articles to be defamatory. I also found that while there was an obvious public interest in having the articles published, on the facts of this case the seven articles could not be said to have been the products of responsible journalism. The parties [9] The claimant is a chartered accountant since 1972 and a member of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. He practiced as a chartered accountant at Price Waterhouse Coopers in Canada between 1974 and 1993 and held a series of managerial positions with Air Canada, a commercial airline company. Between 1995 and 1997, he was president of ALM Antillean Airlines. He was president and chief executive officer (“CEO”) of BWIA from 1993 to 1994 and 1998 to May 2003. He was also the chief executive officer of Air West Indies Limited, (“AWIL”) trading as CA International, which was his own company and which had an executive supply contract with BWIA. [10] The claimant was also the chairman of the local airline, Tobago Express Limited, a director of Allied Caterers Limited and of Katerserv Limited, (both of which were, at one time, subsidiary companies of BWIA), a director of West Indian Airways Aircraft Limited (“WIAAL”) and a director of West Indian Airways Aircraft No. 2 Limited (“WIAAL (No. 2)”), both of which were subsidiary companies of BWIA and were incorporated in the Cayman Islands. He was also the chairman of the United Way of Trinidad and Tobago, a non profit company incorporated under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. [11] The first defendant is the proprietor and printer of two newspapers, the Sunday Express and the Daily Express. It is also the proprietor and publisher of the web-site known as “The Internet Express” which is accessible to any user of the World Wide Web system of the Internet. The second defendant was joint publisher of both newspapers. The third defendant was editor of the Sunday Express and the fourth defendant (Ms Marajh) is a journalist employed by the first defendant for over twenty years. The Sunday Express describes itself as the national newspaper of Trinidad and Tobago and has the largest circulation of all newspapers in Trinidad and Tobago. Page 4 of 96 The claimant’s case [12] The claimant alleged that in early March 2003, the fourth defendant requested an interview with him about allegations made against BWIA in a high court action brought by a minority shareholder of BWIA. The action had been withdrawn. After initially declining the interview, he had a change of heart and agreed. According to the claimant, Ms Marajh represented (or misrepresented) to him that the focus of the story would be on the state of the airline industry and how BWIA was coping. A four hour interview was conducted on the 2 nd day of April, 2003. During the course of the interview, the claimant furnished Ms Marajh with certain documents which provided information about BWIA, relevant to her enquiries, including the figure for the total executive payroll of BWIA, the executive supply contract between BWIA and AWIL and other information pertinent to BWIA and the claimant’s role therein. [13] On 5 th April, 2003, the defendants advertised on the front page of the Saturday Express , an “exclusive investigation” to be published in the Sunday Express entitled “Inside the BWIA fiasco”, encouraging members of the public to purchase the Sunday Express and to read the articles published therein. The claimant contended that through the subsequent articles in the Sunday Express , the defendants falsely and maliciously wrote, printed and published, words defamatory of him, in the way of his offices as president and CEO of BWIA and as president and CEO of AWIL and his profession. Extracts from the articles containing the alleged defamatory words are included in the statement of claim. The full articles were admitted into evidence and are (mostly) reproduced later in this judgment. [14] The claimant contended that the words in their natural and ordinary and inferential meaning, meant and were understood to mean, that the claimant- • was or was reasonably suspected of being greedy or motivated by greed; • engaged in, or was reasonably suspected of having engaged in smear tactics, personal vendettas, secret, shady and suspicious Page 5 of 96 deals, financial impropriety, fraudulent, suspicious and questionable accounting practices, suspicious and questionable and unethical or illicit shady and clandestine dealings or business practices, improper and illegal activities. • was incompetent or was not accountable; • was involved in dishonest or fraudulent or corrupt dealings and activities; • had compromised or was reasonably suspected of having compromised or sacrificed, or participated in compromising or sacrificing, the interests of BWIA and the shareholders of BWIA to private individuals including himself; • conspired or had conspired with others or was reasonably suspected of conspiring

Load more