Defamation Court Orders Frederick-MBC to pay $69,000! | THE STAR

Following is the Court docket’s Judgment handed down this week:

PHILLIP, J: That is an software for evaluation of damages on a judgment in default of defence entered on fifteenth Could 2019. The claimant filed a declare for defamation searching for damages, injunctive aid, curiosity and prices. The defendants didn’t file a defence throughout the time prescribed underneath the Civil Process Guidelines, 2000 (as amended) (CPR) and judgment in default of defence was entered towards the defendants.

On twelfth February 2021, the claimant utilized with a supporting affidavit for the injunction to restrain the second defendant, whether or not by himself, his servants or brokers or in any other case, nevertheless, and to limit the primary defendant, whether or not by himself, his servants or in any other case, howsoever from publishing or inflicting to be revealed the stated or any related phrases contained within the declare herein defamatory of the claimant and fixing a date for the evaluation of damages. The courtroom granted the injunction and directed the events to file and serve their witnesses’ statements and written submissions concerning the evaluation of damages scheduled for 18th October 2021.

The Claimant’s Case

Proof
The claimant’s proof, as far as related in her witness assertion filed on 14th June 2021, though a bit prolonged, is about out verbatim:

I’m at present the Managing Director of Accela Advertising and marketing Firm Restricted, an award- profitable firm providing promoting and advertising options to private and non-private enterprise enterprises in Saint Lucia and the Japanese Caribbean. I additionally handle a enterprise consultancy enterprise and I’ve undertaken vital work in tourism, advertising and enterprise diagnostic and improvement inside Saint Lucia and the broader Caribbean. A replica of the Annual Returns for Accela Advertising and marketing for the yr 2021 is exhibited hereto and marked “A.F.1”.

Over time I’ve carried out advertising consultancy providers for high-profile shoppers regionally, regionally and internationally. Moreover, the Firm has obtained quite a few optimistic critiques for its providers. Proof of this may be discovered on the Firm’s web site underneath “Testimonials” Copies of a non-exhaustive checklist of shoppers and testimonials displayed on the corporate web site are collectively exhibited hereto and marked “A.F.2”.

The Firm has obtained a number of awards and accolades over the yr for its high- high quality efficiency underneath my directorship. A replica of the checklist of a few of the most notable award obtained by the Firm is exhibited right here and marked “A.F.3”.

I’m additionally a former Director of Tourism, wherein capability I used to be liable for the administration and coordination of the advertising, public relations and tourism product improvement of Saint Lucia.

I’m additionally a broadcast creator of a number of papers on tourism and I’ve served on a number of statutory and personal sector boards together with the Saint Lucia Chamber of Commerce, Saint Lucia Vacationer Board, Saint Lucia Lodge and Tourism Affiliation, Make investments Saint Lucia Sports activities Inc., amongst others. I served at completely different occasions because the Chairpersons of the Saint Lucia Vacationer Board, the Nationwide Improvement Company and Make investments Saint Lucia.

Up till 2nd August 2018, I used to be an individual who held vital standing in Saint Lucia as a public {and professional} determine of wonderful reputation and my enterprise pursuits are completely depending on my fame for offering sincere and reliable providers to my shoppers.

On or in regards to the 2nd August 2018, the First Defendant hosted a tv program referred to as “Can I assist You”, which was broadcast on McDowall Broadcasting Company (MBC), a tv station owned and operated by the Second Defendant; and which airs on Channel 120 on the FLOW service supplier, amongst different service suppliers in Saint Lucia, in the middle of which programme a number of defamatory of me have been made and revealed by the Defendants.

The statements recommend that I abused my workplace as director of Tourism and that in impact I’m dishonest, corrupt and can’t be trusted with public or personal funds or belongings. I consider that that is the style wherein the defamatory statements can be understood by an inexpensive right-thinking man or a mean member of society.

I consider that the defamatory statements have been revealed in a fashion meant to excite and incense viewers of the Defendants’ programme and that the Defendants knew or should have recognized that the phrases used or that means conveyed by such phrases have been unfaithful.

I consider that that the Defendants on the time of publication knew that the statements made have been defamatory, and determined to make and publish the statements on their broadcast as a result of the prospects of fabric benefit outweighed the prospects of fabric loss. The Defendants have been motivated by malice and revealed the defamatory statements aspiring to negatively have an effect on my fame. I additionally consider that the Defendants have been motivated by financial issues, and revealed the defamatory statements with a view to sustaining scores, sponsorship and commercials, no matter whether or not the statements have been defamatory or not.

I’m conscious that the Defendants are very fashionable in tv broadcasting in Saint Lucia, particularly the Can I assist You programme hosted by the First Defendant. This programme is adopted by not solely numerous Saint Lucians regionally, but in addition by Saint Lucians residing overseas. I’m additionally conscious that the programme is broadcasted over the web, which ensures a limitless quantity of entry and availability to individuals all around the world. The Defendants’ medium is subsequently as intensive as any publication may very well be within the jurisdiction of Saint Lucia; and likewise, has vast attain exterior of Saint Lucia by advantage of its availability on the Worldwide Internet.

The defamatory statements revealed by the Defendants have triggered severe damage to my fame, significantly attributable to the truth that the allegations and defamatory statements made relate to my occupation and mirror poorly on my private integrity. I really feel that my fame has diminished considerably on account of the stated publications of the Defendants.

I used to be unquestionably appalled after I learnt of the contents of the defamatory statements revealed by the Defendants. I additionally grew to become infuriated that the Defendants who had no foundation or proof of the validity or creditability of those defamatory statements, had nonetheless revealed such slanderous remarks in relation to my character and profession.

The stated publication of the Defendants triggered me a lot misery, grief, humiliation and embarrassment. I obtained vital public opprobrium on account of the Defendants’ publication.

On third August 2018, the morning after the Defendants’ broadcast of the defamatory statements towards me, I obtained a name from the Chairman of the Water and Sewage Firm of Saint Lucia, Mr. Francis Denbow, who indicated to me that he had heard my identify on the published and indicated that if he didn’t know my character, he would consider that I used to be dishonest, corrupt and a thief.

Mr. George “Fish” Alphonse additionally approached me and knowledgeable me that he was praying for me, and indicated to me that no matter is happening in my life, he hoped that I’ll recover from it and that he was shocked by what he had heard on the published of the Defendants. I knowledgeable him that what he had heard was not true and Mr. Alphonse stated that his ‘stomach stopped hurting’ him, that means that he was relieved by my assurance.

Ms. Drenia Frederick and Ms. Celeste Burton, at an Occasions Saint Lucia Board assembly, enquired of me whether or not I used to be okay in gentle of the Defendants’ broadcast and the feedback which it generated in numerous WhatsApp group chats and different social media. I knowledgeable them that the issues stated have been unfaithful. Ms. Frederick and Ms. Burton each indicated that till I assured them in any other case that they had believed the statements broadcasted by the Defendants.

While I used to be passing by the JQ Mall in Rodney Bay, Gros Islet, I noticed individuals pointing at me in an accusatory means. This had by no means occurred to me previous to the Defendants’ broadcast.

My buddy, Ms. Berthia Parle, was additionally stopped by individuals whom she met within the interval following the published and requested whether or not she had heard the statements made within the broadcast and whether or not they have been true.

I additionally obtained calls from so far as Canada, the USA and the UK from individuals asking if the statements within the Defendants’ broadcast have been true.

For sure, though I used to be in a position to guarantee individuals who knew me personally and who made enquiries of me, that the defamatory statements have been unfaithful, there would have been many hundreds of people that heard the published however didn’t know me effectively sufficient to know that these statements have been unfaithful.

The slanderous statements revealed by the Defendants have subsequently triggered me vital embarrassment, humiliation and misery. The impact of the publication was far-reaching and had implications on my social, skilled and enterprise relationships in addition to my standing in society.

What has triggered additional aggravation is that I triggered my Authorized Practitioners to jot down a letter to the First Defendant requesting an apology and a public retraction of his defamatory statements towards me. This letter was written and served on him on twentieth August 2018, however he refused to apologise and/or retract his defamatory statements. On 18th December 2018, I triggered my Authorized Practitioners to file a declare towards the Defendants [f]or defamation. The declare was served on each Defendants on 4th January 2019, however neither of them filed any defence to the declare.

An apology was by no means provided by the Defendants nor was a retraction of the statements made, which added additional damage to my emotions.

I consider that the defamatory statements towards me revealed by the Defendants have been successfully handed off as factual info and present affairs on a information programme by the First Defendant, who holds himself out to be a whistle-blower and purveyor of fact, and one who backs his tales with documentary proof to show allegations of misconduct towards public officers.

As my enterprise pursuits are completely depending on my fame for offering sincere and reliable providers to my shoppers and prospects each in the private and non-private sector, these statements have vital potential to have an effect on my earnings by detracting and averting would-be shoppers and prospects, regionally, regionally and internationally, who could consider that I’m dishonest, corrupt, and can’t be trusted with public or personal funds or belongings, on account of the Defendants’ publication.

That is exacerbated by the truth that the Defendants’ statements have been made particularly in relation to my skilled life {and professional} integrity.

Additional, the Defendant’s feedback have been associated to my work within the subject of Tourism; which is my ardour and a subject wherein I’ve spent a lifetime constructing a profitable profession, conducting analysis and publishing papers. The Defendants’ statements have tarnished my fame on this subject and is prone to end in vital monetary loss to me, as that is my major subject of experience and generates my most profitable skilled engagement.

On account of the defamatory statements revealed by the Defendants, I’ve suffered vital monetary loss with respect to my advertising consultancy enterprise, which is closely depending on my upstanding fame as an sincere and reliable member of society. I’ve all the time loved a busy observe as a advertising guide and would frequently procure a number of tasks per yr. In actual fact, in 2017, the yr previous to being defamed by the Defendants, I used to be awarded a complete of 9 consulting contracts, amounting to over $2,000,000. Conversely, within the two years for the reason that publication of the defamatory statements by the Defendants in 2018, I’ve solely been awarded two consulting contracts to a complete worth of roughly $200,000. This represents a stark distinction within the enterprise which I obtained earlier than and after the publication of the defamatory statements by the Defendants. I consider that this vital decline in enterprise is as a direct results of the reckless conduct of the Defendants in publishing the defamatory statements towards me, thereby negatively affecting my fame and my capability to draw work within the advertising trade. A replica of the consulting revenues which I earned all through the interval of March 2017 to March 2020 is exhibited hereto and marked “A.F.4”.

Additional, the Defendants’ statements exist in a everlasting type, as copies of the First Defendant’s programme might be requested and obtained by members of the general public from the Second-Defendant’s tv station any variety of occasions, now and at any time sooner or later.

I subsequently respectfully ask this Honourable Court docket to award substantial damages towards the Defendants for his or her unfounded, vicious and egregious assault on my character and fame, which damages ought to embrace basic damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages, along with curiosity at such a fee because the Court docket could deem simply.

In cross-examination, the claimant confirmed that she had seen this system ‘Can I Assist You’ earlier than November 2018 and frequently appeared on radio and tv throughout her stewardship of the Saint Lucia Tourism Authority. The claimant was referred to a number of paragraphs of her witness assertion. First (para 13), she acknowledged that she acknowledged there have been hundreds of viewers and supplied the courtroom with proof of her assertion. Nonetheless, she conceded that she didn’t present proof of the tv protection. Subsequent (paras 14, 16 and 24), she acknowledged that the witness assertion did present some examples of those assertions, and the attachments have been clear and proof of those assertions. She couldn’t recall whether or not {a photograph} of her was displayed through the broadcast.

When referred to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the witness assertion, the claimant acknowledged that she didn’t perceive as her authorized consultant dealt with these issues. Nonetheless, she agreed that she didn’t present the courtroom with the letter referred to in these paragraphs and that no proof was supplied that the letter was served on the defendants. Concerning paragraphs 28 to 31, the claimant acknowledged that she supplied audited paperwork by an audit agency of those assertions. She indicated when one reads the paperwork, the decline in her enterprise needed to do with the publication, which was the one change in her scenario. The statements/paperwork present that the decline was earlier than March 2020, when the COVID-19 affect was not but felt. The claimant maintained that any decline ought to be attributed to the defamatory publication with out extra and didn’t agree that the audit paperwork weren’t useful to her case.

The claimant additionally accepted in cross-examination that the defamatory publication included a sequence of questions by the primary defendant. Nonetheless, she denied that he requested her to substantiate the story within the publication and that he was asking for a response. She additionally denied that the defamatory publication was a one-off or non-repeat publication and acknowledged that in her pleaded case, she stated it occurred greater than as soon as. The claimant agreed that the defamatory publication didn’t outright say she was a thief, dishonest or professionally incompetent. Lastly, she disagreed that the defamatory publication was largely innocent and the defendants didn’t got down to hurt her.

Submissions

The claimant, counting on the instances of Victoria Alcide v H.T.S Restricted et al.1and Rishatha

• Nicholls v Arnhim Eustace2, the place the courtroom awarded basic damages to the claimant of $100,000.00 and $120,000.00, respectively, submitted that within the instantaneous case, the courtroom ought to make an award of basic damages akin to the award given in these instances which displays the truth that the claimant suffered the destiny of being robbed of her pristine fame as a hard- working, sincere and upstanding member of society, on account of the unfaithful defamatory statements revealed by the defendants.
• Furthermore, the claimant submitted ample compensation ought to be awarded to the claimant to console her for the appreciable stress, anxiousness and embarrassment that the defamatory phrases revealed by the defendants have triggered her. Additional, in making an award of basic damages, the courtroom ought to contemplate the extreme reputational injury and damage suffered by the claimant, each in her private {and professional} capability, particularly having regard to the truth that her success as a advertising guide and businesswoman is hinged on her sustaining her good fame and her picture as an sincere and upstanding member of society.
• Moreover, in figuring out the quantum of basic damages to be awarded to the claimant, the courtroom also needs to have regard to the numerous monetary loss suffered by her as a direct results of the defamation of her character by the defendants. The claimant’s submission is that the proof that she has put earlier than the courtroom sufficiently establishes the nexus between her and Accela Advertising and marketing Ltd, in order that the numerous loss in income by Accela Advertising and marketing Ltd. following the publication was a direct results of the defamatory and unfaithful statements revealed by the Defendants. The Defendants haven’t refuted this proof.
• Additional, the claimant submitted that it’s settled legislation that in defamation claims, a claimant can depend on a defendant’s conduct as aggravating the damages to which the claimant is entitled. The claimant referred to the next authorities:3 Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991], Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986), Keith Mitchell v Steve Fassihi et al., Dr Philbert Aaron v Abel Jno Baptiste, and Dr Edmond Mansoor v Eugene Silcott and submitted that within the instantaneous case, the defendants didn’t file a defence to the declare instituted by the claimant. Moreover, the claimant’s authorized practitioners wrote to the primary defendant; they requested that he publicly retract his assertion and apologise to the claimant for the defamatory statements fabricated from her. Not like in Dr Edmond Mansoor, the primary defendant responded to the letter from the claimant’s authorized practitioners and vehemently refused to retract his statements or provide an apology to the claimant. As a substitute, he arrogantly defended his statements and denied that they have been defamatory. The primary defendant’s method of supply of the defamatory phrases towards the claimant was scornful, and he was not performing with a correct motive or with real journalistic inquiry. The claimant ought to obtain an award of aggravated damages reflecting the character of the defendants’ conduct.
• Citing Gatley on Libel and Slander and Manson v Related Newspaper Ltd.4, the claimant submitted, in defamation claims, a profitable claimant may additionally be entitled to an award of exemplary damages by the courtroom, relying on the circumstances of the case. Within the instantaneous matter, the claimant ought to obtain an award of exemplary damages to mirror that the defendants have been conscious of the chance of publishing such scandalous content material. Furthermore, the courtroom should consider the truth that the primary defendant specifically, is an skilled Legal professional-at-Regulation, ‘and speak present host’ who’s actually conscious of the detrimental affect of the defamatory statements fabricated from the claimant and the irreparable injury which they’re prone to trigger to her.
• The claimant submits that the defendants’ publication of the defamatory statements towards her has triggered her appreciable misery, anxiousness and humiliation. Moreover, it has had a detrimental affect on her as soon as untarnished and pristine fame and triggered vital monetary loss to her. Concerning the defamatory phrases used and the extent of its publication, the affect on the claimant, and the defendants’ conduct, the claimant surmised the courtroom ought to award her substantial damages, together with basic, aggravated, and exemplary damages. The quantum of damages awarded ought to be not lower than $150,000.00

The Defendants’ Case

The defendants didn’t file any witness statements however, on sixth July 2021, filed a doc styled ‘Reply to Software for Evaluation of Damages’. They contend that:

• The claimant in her pleaded case averred that she is the Managing Director of Accela Advertising and marketing Firm Restricted (“the Firm”) to base her rivalry that she is an individual of great standing in Saint Lucia with a public {and professional} picture however by no means asserted that the Firm suffered loss on account of the publication which is the subject material of those proceedings. Additional, assuming however not admitting the Firm did undergo loss as alleged within the witness assertion, the issues upon which the claimant based the declare of loss have been rumour materials. Subsequently, the declare concerning the alleged loss suffered by the Firm was unsustainable and never made out.
• The claimant has didn’t show that she has suffered any monetary loss over and above any loss to her fame; subsequently her declare for particular damages was unsustainable. The claimant has didn’t show by means of proof that she suffered reputational accidents because of the publication complained of. The proof relied on by the claimant to show reputational injury was premised on what she thinks of herself.
• The claimant has didn’t make out a case for aggravated, punitive or exemplary damages. She offered no proof that the defendants knew they have been committing a tort or have been reckless and meant to revenue from their wrongdoing. On this regard, the defendants will depend on the primary defendant’s questions and his invitation to the claimant to reply these questions.
• The claimant supplied no proof or supporting proof of the issues in paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29 and 32 of the witness assertion. Whereas paragraphs 20 and 21 are rumour and irrelevant, and as to paragraph 30, the publication had nothing to do with the claimant’s competence within the subject of tourism.
• Concerning paragraph 25 of the witness assertion, the defendants couldn’t file a defence to the declare as they sought info from the claimant, who stole a march by making use of for the judgment in default whereas counsel have been engaged in discussions.
• The defendants contend that the claimant isn’t entitled to an award of damages on the proof offered.
• Of their closing submissions, the defendant reiterated that the claimant’s witness assertion (paras 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 29 and 32) have been unsupported by proof and that the issues referred to (paras 19-23) have been inadmissible rumour. The alleged individuals talked about wanted to testify to the issues she spoke to within the stated paragraphs, however she didn’t name them.
• The claimant didn’t plead malice nor set out proof of malicious intent concerning the publication in her witness assertion. She didn’t show the extent of the publication. Nonetheless, she agreed in cross- examination that the phrases complained of have been revealed on one event.
• In paragraphs 28-31 of her witness assertion, the claimant tried to make a case for lack of enterprise. This effort was pissed off for 2 causes: (1) it was not a part of her pleaded case, and (2) she supplied no proof upon which this courtroom might rely to award damages. In that regard, the document6 she seeks to depend on doesn’t converse to any lack of income because of the publication. Additionally, it’s a doc ready by an professional, and the claimant didn’t adjust to Half 32 of the CPR concerning professional proof.
• The claimant didn’t show that she wrote to the defendants demanding an apology and that the letter was served to them. Beneath cross-examination, the claimant agreed that the assertion complained of by no means stated she was dishonest, nor was something stated about her skilled competence.
• On the problem of the award of damages, the defendants submitted the premise of aggravated/ exemplary/punitive damages lies in proof of malice. Common damages could also be aggravated by proof of the circumstances of the publication. For instance, the defendant’s conduct throughout and after the publication (together with a defendant’s pursuit of the case in courtroom) and particularly if the defendant repeats the publication: Elwardo Lynch and BDS Restricted v Ralph Gonsalves7. Additional, counting on The Regulation of Damages8 and Elwardo Lynch,9 damages could also be aggravated when the defamation is especially egregious or hurtful. Nonetheless, a claimant should give proof to show the existence of a malicious motive within the thoughts of the writer of the phrases complained of, that the defendant knew he was committing a tort and was reckless and or meant to revenue from his unsuitable. The defendants submitted that for the reason that claimant didn’t plead and particularise malice and additional failed to offer proof that the publication had malicious intent, she isn’t entitled to an award of aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages.
• Additional, the defendants submitted the place a defamatory assertion is basically innocent or technical, an award of nominal damages could also be acceptable as damage to the claimant’s fame is presumed, entitling the claimant to at the very least an award of nominal damages. Nonetheless, a claimant searching for substantial damages should show by proof that they have been entitled to greater than a nominal award. Particularly, a claimant should lead proof to point out whether or not individuals held them extremely; fame is what others consider one, not what one thinks of oneself. The proof should additionally present that the claimant’s fame was diminished. In assist of this submission, they relied on Victor Williams v Shefton Crosse10 and Elwardo Lynch11.
• In assessing the damages, the courtroom will regard the extent of the publication, the gravity of the affect upon the claimant’s emotions, fame or profession, and the defendant’s conduct. The claimant adduced no proof to show reputational injury or a diminution in her fame. She has failed to ascertain the extent of the viewers that considered or heard the publication. The publication was a one-off one consisting of a number of questions the place the primary named defendant referred to as on the claimant to substantiate the questions requested. The phrases complained of have been largely innocent, so the claimant is just entitled to nominal damages. In Victor Williams, the final damages awarded have been $15,000.00 and aggravated damages of $10,000.00. In Kevin Huggins v Nisha Vanmali,12 the place the claimant proved no reputational injury, the courtroom awarded damages of $28,000.00. The defendants urged, given the actual fact on this case, the courtroom ought to grant the sum of $10,000.00 to the claimant as nominal damages.

Dialogue

In Gatley on Libel and Slander,13 the discovered authors noticed:

“9.4 Common Damages Compensatory. The aim of basic damages is to compensate the claimant for the consequences of the defamatory assertion,35 however compensation here’s a extra complicated thought than it’s within the case of damage to individual or property by negligence. Common damages serve three capabilities,36 albeit that the emphasis positioned on every will range from case to case37: to behave as a comfort to the claimant for the misery he38 suffers from the publication of the statement39; to restore the hurt to his fame (together with, the place related, his enterprise fame); and as a vindication of his fame.40 … Though deterrence might not be a proper objective of basic damages for defamation, but the place such damages are substantial (as they’re in England) deterrence is an impact of them.45 Certainly, the legislation goes additional and in some instances permits damages that are designed to punish.46

Whereas precise monetary loss (akin to lack of enterprise or employment) which isn’t too distant is clearly recoverable47 (and in some instances of slander needs to be proven as a way to set up a reason behind action48) it’s a comparatively uncommon case wherein proof of such loss is given,49 just because it’s not out there.50 It has been stated that probably the most severe defamations are people who contact the ‘‘core attributes of the plaintiff’s persona’’,51 issues akin to integrity,52 honour, braveness, loyalty and achievement53 and in these instances it’s impossible that he’ll be capable to level to provable gadgets of loss flowing from the phrases. Even the place the libel goes to the claimant’s monetary credit score it could be just about not possible to show monetary loss however the injury is insidious and deserves a considerable award.54 … In instances of libel and slander actionable per se the legislation subsequently presumes injury arising from the publication and the claimant is entitled to look to an award of damages adequate to vindicate his fame based on the seriousness of the defamation, the vary of its publication57 and the extent to which the defendant has endured with the cost.58

• Our system doesn’t regard the claimant’s fame as vindicated by a symbolic award of a token or typical sum of damages and the jury in a severe case is entitled to award a big sum maybe equalling or exceeding the damages in a case of great private injury59: Whereas the extent of damages shouldn’t be so excessive as unduly to curtail freedom of expression, ‘‘the courtroom ought to be cautious to not drive down damages in libel instances to a degree which publishers may with equanimity be tempted to threat having to pay’’.60 However, ‘‘the determine of Justice carries a pair of scales, not a cornucopia’’61 and ‘‘it serves no public objective to encourage plaintiffs to treat a profitable libel motion, dangerous although the method undoubtedly is, as a street to untaxed riches’’.62 The jury could, in fact, take the view that the libel isn’t very severe in its nature or impact and award a low and even token sum, however it’s opposite to precept for it to search out that the claimant has been defamed and to award no damages.
• Issues affecting the extent of award.
• Damages are ‘‘at giant’’ within the sense that they can’t be assessed by reference to any mechanical, arithmetical or goal formula65 and they’re peculiarly the province of the jury (the place there’s a trial by that methodology).66 The jury (or choose if sitting alone) is entitled to consider a variety of matters67 together with the conduct of the claimant,68 his credibility,69 his place and standing70 and the subjective affect that the libel has had on him,71 the character of the libel, its gravity72 and the mode and extent of its publication,73 the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology,74 and the conduct of the defendant from the time when the libel was revealed down to75 the decision. The conduct of the claimant76 is related not solely in respect of issues which go to ‘‘partial justification’’ of the libel77 but in addition to his conduct in the middle of the litigation, as the place he engages in an elaborate and long- lasting try and pervert the course of justice involving making and procuring false testimony and making probably the most damaging allegations of corruption and mendacity towards harmless third events.78”
• Subsequently, in a defamation declare, the courtroom awards compensatory damages which can be ‘at giant’ for injuring the claimant’s fame and damage emotions. The damages embrace damage to the claimant’s emotions, ache and struggling, lack of amenity, the anxiousness and uncertainty of the litigation, the absence of apology, the reaffirmation of the reality of the issues complained of, or the defendant’s malice. The courtroom considers the defendant’s conduct from the defamation – earlier than and after submitting the declare and on the trial. The claimant’s dangerous conduct may additionally correctly enter into the reckoning the place, for instance, the claimant has provoked the defamation or has defamed the defendant in reply. Accordingly, talking of aggravated and exemplary damages individually in defamation claims could also be inappropriate.
• I now apply the above ideas to find out an acceptable quantum of damages on this case.
• I discovered that on or in regards to the 2nd August 2018, on a tv program referred to as “Can I Assist You”, hosted by the primary defendant and broadcast on McDowall Broadcasting Company (MBC), a tv station owned and operated by the second defendant, and which airs on Channel 120 on the FLOW service supplier, amongst different service suppliers in Saint Lucia, the defendants revealed the phrases complained of, specifically: “Now talking about transparency, what precisely is going on on the tourism authority. I haven’t stated vacationer board, , as a result of I’m type of proof against a few of these modifications that have been being made or which can be made. Tourism authority. Sure, Agnes Francis, has resigned as Chairman of the board, Chairperson of the board. Agnes Francis I need you to inform us precisely what occur. I need you to inform us what occur. Is it true that however Allen Chastanet had assisted you and your husband, that you just have been so sick of him, that you just spoke negativity overtly in relation to him. Is that true. Um. And is it true it acquired again to him. Now Agnes Francis what was your wage imagined to have been? What was your wage imagined to have been? Wasn’t your wage imagined to have been twenty-five thousand {dollars}/ um, wasn’t it? Have been you really inflicting your self to be paid forty thousand {dollars} a month? Is that true? I’m asking. What in regards to the per per diem that you just paid your self once you journey? Now for these individuals who don’t know what pay diem is, a per diem sorry, per diem is am once you journey as a authorities worker, you might be given a each day allowance to spend within the nation that you’re going on authorities’s behalf. That’s what it’s.
• “So there’s a stipulated fee for some officers, it could be 100 {dollars}, others one twenty one thirty all of it relies upon. However, is it true Agnes, that your per diem was imagined to have been one twenty, a day, however once you travelled, you have been paying your self, or inflicting your self to be paid seven hundred {dollars} a day? Is that true? What a few chair? Is it true you got a chair for 5 thousand {dollars}? Huh? Huh, however, however, did they threaten to make all these deductions from the cacaduh you’re going to get now? Did they? I’m asking. By the way in which what occurred on Tuesday Agnes? Is it true you have been denied entry to the workplace? Have been you denied entry and why? And have been you introduced or taken to the workplace yesterday the vacation, underneath escort, to oversee what you have been taking? Mmh? However Agnes, you caan really feel dangerous in the event that they deny you entry . That may be a trait of the united staff social gathering. It’s. When Stephenson King sadly was changed as chief of the opposition by Gale Reigobert, they locked Stephenson King out of his workplace, and denied him entry. You do not forget that. So who’re you? Who’re you? You’re a small fry. Mmh. They did it to an ex prime minister. If they’ll do it to an ex prime minister, what on earth do you count on. So we have to know what is going on. And Agnes I look ahead to you answering these questions. However what I can let you know of us, there may be bother brewing within the camp. Oh sure …….”
• There was no problem that the phrases complained of have been defamatory. As a substitute, the defendants contended they have been largely innocent or technical, and an award of nominal damages could also be acceptable. Nonetheless, I discovered the phrases complained of to imply or have been understood to imply, amongst different issues, that the claimant abused her place as chairperson of the Vacationer Board to be paid $15,000.00 monthly above her wage and paid herself per diem of $580.00 above the prescribed fee when she travelled on authorities enterprise, and was threatened with having the overpaid sums of monies deducted from her ultimate advantages on termination of employment from the Vacationer Board. These phrases complained of raised allegations of felony offences (stealing by purpose of employment, for instance, recognised by the Felony Code of Saint Lucia) and are subsequently actionable per se. Additionally, the allegations that the claimant was denied entry to places of work she beforehand occupied besides underneath escort to oversee what she took from the workplace bolstered the suggestion that her previous employer, the Vacationer Board, couldn’t belief her. Thus, I don’t settle for that the phrases complained of have been largely innocent or technical.
• The claimant was a well-recognised senior guide and govt within the subject of Tourism and has spent a lifetime constructing a profitable profession, conducting analysis and publishing papers. She deposed that she was unquestionably appalled when she learnt of the contents of the defamatory statements revealed by the defendants. The defamatory publication triggered her vital misery, grief, humiliation and embarrassment, and she or he obtained vital public opprobrium because of the defendants’ publication. She obtained a number of calls, regionally and from Canada, the USA and the UK, of empathy from numerous individuals. Whereas passing by the JQ Mall in Rodney Bay, Gros Islet, she noticed individuals pointing at her accusingly. This had by no means occurred to her previous to the defendants’ broadcast. Additionally, the defendants by no means provided an apology, nor retracted the defamatory statements, which added additional damage to her emotions. The defendants haven’t significantly controverted this proof.
• Nonetheless, I agree with the defendants’ submissions that the claimant has didn’t show by means of proof the affect of the reputational accidents suffered because of the publication complained of. The claimant adduced no proof to show reputational injury or a diminution in her fame. She didn’t name as witnesses any of the a number of individuals she stated contacted her concerning the publication to testify of their view of her due to the publication. However, there is no such thing as a proof of any dangerous conduct of the claimant concerning the defamation that might diminish the probably award of damages.
• The claimant has additionally alleged vital monetary loss with respect to her advertising consultancy enterprise because of the defamatory statements revealed by the defendants. She deposed (para [3] above at para 31 of the quoted affidavit) that she had all the time loved a busy observe as a advertising guide and would frequently procure a number of tasks yearly however suffered a stark distinction within the enterprise she obtained earlier than and after the publication of the defamatory statements by the defendants. Nonetheless, this was not a part of her pleaded case, and the Firm was not a celebration to the declare. There was no pleading that the Firm suffered any loss or damages. Furthermore, the proof upon which the claimant seeks to rely for the numerous monetary loss isn’t linked in any materials means with the defamatory publication.
• Equally, the claimant didn’t plead malice nor set out proof of malicious intent concerning the publication in her witness assertion. Nor did she plead that the defendants didn’t apologise even after the preaction letter was servd on them as a foundation of aggravated damages. Additional, I undertake the reasoning in Dr. Edmond Mansoor v Eugene Silcott15 that: “The truth that the Defendant didn’t reply to the claimant’s letter demanding a retraction of and apology for his publication of the phrases complained of and the truth that the phrases complained of contained an unfaithful imputation towards the fame of the claimant, are exactly the elements which render the Defendant liable to the claimant for defamation. These details don’t, within the circumstances, justify an award to the claimant of aggravated damages.”

Consequently, contemplating the authorities cited by either side, significantly Victoria Alcide, Rishatha Nicholls, Victor Williams (and the authorities referred to therein), and Kevin Huggins, and the details of this case, and the time that has elapsed since a few of these authorities. I acknowledge a presumption of injury in a defamation case for damage to the claimant’s fame. I decided that an acceptable award to the claimant for the defamation is $60,000.00 on the whole damages for her inured emotions, misery, grief, humiliation and embarrassment, and presumed reputational injury.

For these causes, IT IS ORDERED that:

• The defendants shall pay the claimant damages for the defamation of $60,000.00 along with curiosity underneath Article 1009A of the Civil Code on the statutory fee of 6% every year from the date of judgment to fee.
• The defendants shall pay the claimant the prescribed prices of $9,000.00.