Young wins $500k defamation case against Trinidad Express

2026-03-28 - 02:04

Derek Achong Senior Reporter derek.achong@guardian.co.tt Former prime minister Stuart Young has successfully defended a landmark case against the Trinidad Express newspaper over being defamed by an advertisement. In a judgment delivered yesterday, Appellate Judges Nolan Bereaux, James Aboud and Mark Mohammed rejected an appeal brought by the newspaper over a judge’s decision to uphold Young’s case and order over $500,000 in compensation. Justice Bereaux, who wrote the judgment, said that Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson could not be faulted for her decision on liability or the quantum of damages awarded. However, he took issue with how the damages were classified by the judge and provided guidance on how such should be done in future cases. The lawsuit related to a two-page paid advertisement published by the newspaper on September 7, 2017, while Young was a Cabinet minister. The advertisement accused Young of wrongdoing in relation to the operations of the Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC) and stated that it was paid for by “Concerned Citizens of T&T”. After Young initiated a lawsuit, the newspaper admitted that it carried the advertisement although it did not know the identity of the customer, who requested and paid for it. Justice Bereaux stated that the judge did not fail to consider the context of the words in the advertisement and was not wrong to apply the dictionary definition of “scandal” when assessing its use in the advertisement. He also found that the newspaper could not rely on the defence of reportage to cover the advertisement. Justice Bereaux pointed out that the defence only applies to journalism related to matters which are in the public interest when it would be impractical to verify before a timely report is published. “The appellant was not engaged in reporting the news. Instead, the defamatory words were part of an advertisement published by the appellant for profit in circumstances where the appellant knew that the statement in respect of the respondent was false,” Justice Bereaux said. He noted that months before the advertisement was published, the newspaper carried a report in which the allegations against Young were debunked. Justice Bereaux also stated that the newspaper could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege, which is raised by media personnel when defamatory material in the public interest is published after reasonable steps are taken to verify such. “The appellant was well aware that the allegation against the respondent in the advertisement was untrue. That no plea of justification was made in defence is unsurprising,” he said. Dealing with compensation, Justice Bereaux stated that the judge was not wrong to order $375,000 in general damages for Young. However, he took issue with her ordering $125,000 in aggravated and exemplary damages. Aggravated damages are awarded to provide compensation for mental suffering experienced by a litigant, while exemplary damages punish oppressive and unconstitutional conduct. “The judge erred in conflating aggravating and exemplary damages in one award,” he said. He said that the general damages covered the aggravating features of the case, but he ruled that the $125,000 would cover exemplary damages, although the figure for such was at “the higher end of the scale”. “No doubt the Court of Appeal will have to address the issue of excessive exemplary damages awards on some future occasion (some awards even exceeding the total compensation award). This is not the occasion,” he said. Young was represented by Colin Kangaloo, SC, Anthony Bullock and Clay Hackett. The newspaper was represented by Farees Hosein.