30.9 C
Port of Spain
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
HomeNewsLocal NewsJunior Sammy's libel lawsuit against radio station upheld by Appeal Court

Junior Sammy’s libel lawsuit against radio station upheld by Appeal Court

Date:

Related stories

PS5 Pro vs PS5 Graphics Comparison

The Rise of the PS5 Pro: A Game Changer...

Meta Connect 2024 Live: Quest 3S, Project Orion, and All the Latest Announcements

Breaking News from Meta Connect 2024: Exciting Developments Unveiled Welcome...

Palworld’s PS5 Version Indefinitely Delayed in Japan

Palworld’s PS5 Port Stalled Indefinitely in Japan Amid Pokémon...
spot_imgspot_img

The Court of Appeal has upheld a judge’s ruling in a libel lawsuit won by contractor Junior Sammy against a radio station for statements made by its hosts in 2016.

Presiding over the appeal were Justices of Appeal Vasheist Kokaram, Malcolm Holdip, and Carla Brown-Antoine. Kokaram delivered the unanimous ruling on July 2.

Back in 2018, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled in Sammy’s favour and ordered More FM to pay $472,500 for the statements made by Andy Williams and Lennox Smith, hosts of its Ground Report programme in November 2016. The lawsuit was filed by Sammy, Junior Sammy Contractors Ltd, Jusamco Pavers Ltd, and Sammy Multilift Services. At the hearing of the claim, the talk show hosts entered a consent order and the trial proceeded against More FM.

Seepersad held the radio broadcasts constituted libel, the words used on the programme were defamatory, and as the owner of the station, More FM was equally liable.

More FM decided to appeal the ruling. The radio station’s attorneys argued that the trial judge was wrong to determine the cause of action was libel, as the broadcast was spoken word and could only constitute slander. They also contended that the hosts were independent contractors, so More FM should not be held liable for their unscripted broadcasts. Furthermore, the station’s attorneys argued that Sammy and his companies were not identified and the judge failed to consider a public apology by the hosts when making the damages award.

In dismissing More FM’s appeal, Kokaram highlighted the adaptivity of the common law to meet the needs of society, recognizing the broadcast as libel. He emphasized the power of radio broadcasts to instantaneously reach a large audience and the permanent recording of such broadcasts, whether live-streamed or stored on servers.

Kokaram noted that it was time to view broadcasts in a different category, abolishing the distinction between libel and slander. The judges, in their ruling, concluded that More FM was liable for damages despite the settlement by the hosts and could not rely on the apology to reduce the award.

Attorneys Theresa Hadad and Chanka Persadsingh represented More FM, while Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Ronnie Bissessar, SC, and Varin Gopaul-Gosine represented Sammy and his companies.

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

spot_img