Ragoonath v Roget

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Kokaram, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2016
• Neutral Citation: TT 2016 HC 83
• Docket Number: CV 2015-01184
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 06 May 2016

High Court

Kokaram, J.

CV 2015-01184

Ragoonath

and

Roget

Appearances:

Mr. Kelvin Ramkissoon, Mr. Kent Samlal and Mr. DouglasC. Bayley led by Mr. Anand Ramlogan SC for the claimant

Mr. Anthony Bullock led by Mr. Douglas Mendes SC for the defendant

Damages - Defamation — Damage to reputation — Vindication of good name — Distress hurt and humiliation which the publication caused — Role of apologies or corrections as remedies in defamation claims — Aggravated damages — Exemplary damages — Quantum.

Kokaram, J.

INTRODUCTION

1 Saying “I'm sorry” maybe a difficult proposition for a wrongdoer. On the one hand an apology for conduct which has caused injury may have legal consequences and on the other it may be perceived as a sign of weakness. For this reason the wall of silence deepens the despair of the claimant and the anxiety of the defendant in litigation in defamation actions. In such claims where words have caused hurt, embarrassment and humiliation, the simple words “I'm sorry” may be all the more valuable to the claimant. It is therapeutic. It sometimes heals relationships. It gives the person wronged a sense of relief and vindication. It indirectly reforms wrongdoers by endorsing acceptable moral and social codes of conduct which promotes responsible action. In defamation claims the person defamed will treasure the words “I'm sorry” and the law already recognizes that the sooner that it is said the better for those who are found to have defamed the characters of others.

2 The predominance of damages in the forefront of available remedies to the defamed simply cheapens and demeans a person's character, dignity and self-worth. Embarking upon a monetary assessment of one's reputation misses the mark of true vindication for the defamed and where the wrongdoer's words of hurt can be transformed to words of healing “I'm sorry”. To recognize the restorative value in an apology would change a culture from one where persons, who could afford it, simply places a price tag on the rights to reputation and dignity of persons in exchange for an exorbitant license for free speech. For this reason court ordered apologies may be as good as gold in defamation claims. In this undefended defamation claim, this judgment examines the value and basis for making such court ordered apologies in addition to an award of damages for the claimant, Ms. Geeta Ragoonath.

3 Ms. Ragoonath complains of several defamatory statements made by the defendant, Mr. Ancel Roget at a media conference on 24th November 2014 and which were widely broadcast on the electronic and print media, over the ensuing two days. He had accused her of attacking the independence of the Industrial Court. In the context of her status and her relationship with him it was a very grave accusation.

4 Ms. Ragoonath was the General Manager, Human Resources of the Trinidad and Tobago National Petroleum Marketing Company Limited (NPMC). She was involved in the dismissal of 68 workers at NPMC which became the subject of a trade dispute before the Industrial Court. Mr. Roget is the President General of the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (OWTU) which is the trade union which pursued the matter on behalf of the dismissed workers at the Industrial Court. It is the largest trade union in the energy sector and the recognized majority union for certain bargaining units at the NPMC. Mr. Roget is also the head of the Joint Trade Union Movement (JTUM) which comprises several leading trade unions in the country. On 19th November 2014 the Industrial Court ruled that the workers were to be reinstated at NPMC. The judgment was delivered by the President of that Court Her Honour Mrs. Deborah Thomas Felix. Shortly thereafter the company filed an appeal and obtained a stay of execution of the Industrial Court's order.

5 Mr. Roget, obviously using his position and status as President of the OWTU, convened the media conference which attracted wide news coverage. In a sudden and startling revelation, he accused Ms. Ragoonath of writing to His Excellency the President of Trinidad and Tobago, complaining about the Industrial Court's decision and calling for the contract of the President of the Industrial Court not to be renewed. He accused her of acting in a high handed and vindictive manner against the Industrial Court simply because she was upset about the court's judgment. It was an allegation which impugned her professionalism and brought her Company into disrepute. However nothing could be further from the truth.

6 The words uttered by Mr. Roget hurt her. It embarrassed her. It caused her to be shunned, ridiculed and talked about by her co-workers. Her children were affected. She felt compelled to leave her job at NPMC. She found it difficult to find other jobs and eventually retired settling for a less paying job at ANSA McAl but also in the human resources area. At the trial, two years after the words were said about her, she still carries the emotional hurt and she still saw the need for and value in a public apology from Mr. Roget.

7 At the trial there was no contest that the words published by Mr. Roget were defamatory of her and there was no defence to her claim for defamation. I therefore begin this judgment by making a declaration that the statements made by Mr. Roget were wholly without merit and without any supporting evidence. I have formulated the declaration in the following terms:

That Mrs. Ragoonath never wrote nor petitioned His Excellency the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago nor made any complaint whatsoever against the President of the Industrial Court or of its judicial process in relation to the trade dispute 717 of 2013 and IRO 23 of 2013 by seeking to have her contract not renewed. Mrs. Ragoonath had at all times accepted and respected the ruling of the Industrial Court delivered by its President Her Honour Mrs. Deborah Thomas Felix. The statements made by Mr. Roget impugning improper motives to Mrs. Ragoonath is wholly unsupported and untrue.

8 Such a declaration is made with the intention of clearing the clouds which have hung over Ms. Ragoonath on this issue and to address an element of her need for vindication of her reputation and professional standing as is explained later in this judgment.

9 The task of the Court now is to determine the most appropriate form of compensation for Ms. Ragoonath for those defamatory remarks, to find the appropriate vindication of her reputation and good name and solace through an award of damages or the exercise of the Court's equitable jurisdiction in granting injunctive relief. Although common law damages is accepted as the traditional remedy, in understanding the purpose of an award of damages and the principles that underpin it demonstrates that other remedies are effective in achieving those goals.

10 Insofar as an award of damages is concerned, the tests are well settled. Its purpose is threefold; to compensate the claimant for damage to her reputation, vindicate her good name and take account of the distress hurt and humiliation which the publication has caused. See John v. MGM [1997] QB 586 and Kayam Mohammed CA Civ. 118 of 2008. I have examined both objective and subjective elements of the publication and matters that may tend to mitigate or aggravate the injury in arriving at a suitable award. Consideration was given to other awards for damages for defamation that create a framework for determining the appropriate award for compensation. Consideration was also given to Panday v. Gordon [2005] UKPC 36 which sought to raise the bar in the level of damages from previously conservative awards. In this Court's view, a fair award of damages which is not too high as to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech but not too low as to render meaningless the right to reputations is within the range of $180,000.00 to $250,000.00 together with aggravated damages. It is also a suitable case for an award of exemplary damages which I have assessed in the sum of $160,000.00.

11 However, in addition to damages this Court has also examined the role court ordered apologies or corrections can play as appropriate equitable relief in Ms. Ragoonath's claim. Whether the defendant in defamation claims have apologized before the commencement of the trial is already relevant in the assessment of damages. However, apologies as a Court ordered remedy is often ignored, seen perhaps as a misnomer in the law of remedies being left for private negotiations or other suitable ADR mechanisms. This is not to say that court ordered apologies or corrections fall outside the Court's jurisdiction. It is simply that precedent has not unearthed any such exercise in the English common law. However the ability of the Court to order the defendant to apologize in defamation claims is recognized in other jurisdictions as a natural extension of the courts equitable jurisdiction in the grant of injunctive relief. See TV3 Network Ltd v. Eveready New Zealand Ltd [1993] 3 NZLR 335 and Cooke v. Plauen Holdings Pty [2001] FMCA 91. It can serve to vindicate her name in public. It can equally teach rather than punish. It can reinforce the community's norms and ensure a rebalance in the original hurt and sting of the defamatory remarks. There is therefore an intrinsic moral and restorative value in an apology which the Court should promote in the law of remedies if only as a matter of public policy. Its value has been acknowledged and recognized by Ms. Ragoonath in her own testimony.

12 In this case, the Court cannot ignore the value of an apology in circumstances where Ms. Ragoonath explained how real and how useful such an apology will be to her. To say then that court ordered apologies is within the reach of the Court's equitable jurisdiction, it ought very well then to be within its grasp. Our Courts often order restitution along the principles of what is conscionable and fair....