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…
- 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.