Ramadhar v Ramadhar & Ors (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case [2020] UKPC 7


Hilary Term

[2020] UKPC 7

Privy Council Appeal No 0043 of 2018

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

Ramadhar (Appellant) v Ramadhar and others (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

 

From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

 

before

 

Lord Wilson

Lady Black

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Briggs

Lady Arden

 

 

 

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

 

 

2 March 2020

 

 

Heard on 4 July 2019

                   

 

 

Appellant

 

Respondents

Ramesh L Maharaj SC

 

Mervyn Campbell

Tom Poole

 

Frederick A Gilkes

Yuri Saunders

(Instructed by BDB Pitmans LLP)

 

(Instructed by Sinclair Gibson)

 

 

 

 

Respondents:-

(1)       Kishore Ramadhar

(2)       Rudolph A Hanamji

(3)       Satu-Ann Ramcharan

 

 

 

LADY ARDEN: (with whom Lord Wilson, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs agree)

Main issue on this appeal is the meaning of media statements by a politician

1.             This is an appeal by Mr Prakash Ramadhar, the first defendant in this above action. He is one of three defendants whom Kokaram J, sitting in the High Court of Justice of Trinidad and Tobago, found liable in damages for defamation, but he is the only defendant to have appealed. The judge’s decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Archie CJ and Smith JA, Moosai JA dissenting). The main issue is the meaning of the appellant’s statements, because on that turns the question whether he can rely on the defence of truth. There were three claimants in the action, and they are the respondents to this appeal.

How the media statements came to be made

2.             All the parties to this action were members of the Congress of the People (“the COP”). In 2010, the COP was one of the partners in the coalition government, the People’s Partnership Government of Trinidad and Tobago (“the PP”). The coalition replaced the government of the People’s National Movement (“the PNM”). Some of the respondents held high office within the party. Mr Prakash Ramadhar was the political leader of the COP. The first respondent, Mr Kishore Ramadhar, is his brother.

3.             There were disagreements within the COP. Mr Prakash Ramadhar had caused the COP to enter the PP. The respondents disagreed with this decision, and proposed resolutions requiring the National Executive of the party to withdraw from the coalition (the “motion to quit resolution”) and calling on Mr Prakash Ramadhar to account for his leadership of the party (the “resurrection motion”). It was agreed that their resolutions should be considered at a general meeting of the party, called a National Council meeting, which was convened for this purpose for 10 November 2013. In the event the two resolutions were not pursued. Prior to the meeting being held, the respondents criticised Mr Prakash Ramadhar in public.

4.             Local government elections (“the LGE”) were fixed for October 2013. The PNM were reported on 3 October 2013 in the press to have complained to the Elections and Boundaries Commission (the “EBC”) that three of the COP’s candidates were not in fact members of it. The PNM also claimed that it had details of the members of the COP. In…

Details
Case
[2020] UKPC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.