Court orders “Melly Mel” to pay Balwant Singh Hospital over $38M for defamation

Controversial social media personality Melissa Ann Atwell, also known as “Melly Mel”, has been ordered by the High Court to pay the Dr Balwant Singh’s Hospital Inc and its principal, Dr Madhu Singh, some $38.1 million for defamation.
The judgement was handed down by High Court judge Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln on September 3.

The claimants had commenced the claim for damages for defamatory statements published over several days in June 2019 by Atwell, also known as “Melly Mel” on her Facebook page.
According to previous reports, Atwell shared several posts on Facebook of alleged horror stories of pregnant women who were patients at the private institution. In addition to past patients, there were also posts of former workers who made damaging allegations against the hospital and its medical practice.
The private health institution subsequently filed a $100 million lawsuit against Atwell for tarnishing the hospital’s reputation via the social media posts.
In addition to the $100 million in damages, the hospital had also sued for libel damages for no less than $5 million; special damages for no less than $100,000; and aggravated and exemplary damages for no less than $5 million, all to be determined at a trial.

In her affidavit, Atwell had maintained her innocence and swore that the complaints she received were all sent to her as messages. She contended that “the public ought to be made aware of the events… for their own information and guidance.”
Moreover, Atwell had promised to take action against the hospital and the Guyana Police Force for her “wrongful detainment and harassment”. Based on the hospital’s claims, Atwell was questioned extensively about her social activism for over 12 hours without charges before eventually being placed on $200,000 station bail.

Defamation ruling
Nevertheless, after the close of the trial, the court found that the statements were defamatory of the claimants and that Atwell’s defence of justification failed.
The court found that Atwell went on an unverified campaign against the claimants by posting several allegations based on statements alleged to have been received from third parties.
In relation to Dr Singh, the court said the defamatory statements impute professional malpractice and improper and negligent medical advice and treatment, which in some cases endangered the lives and wellbeing of some patients and in other cases was designed to inflate costs. On the other hand, the defamatory statements about the hospital impute improper health care practices, medical negligence and malpractice, including deliberate misdiagnosis for financial gain, engaging incompetent professionals and improper billing practices.
According to the judgement, these statements “…are a very serious form of libel, particularly because it impacts on the professional reputation of the claimants.”
The court further found that there is no evidence that Atwell took steps to verify the truthfulness of the statements or that she requested either a comment or response from the claimants.
In fact, Atwell admitted under cross-examination that she did not check with the hospital to ascertain whether the persons who made statements were patients with the hospital and relied solely on the information given to her by these persons.
“…Ms. Atwell essentially went on an unverified campaign against the Claimants by posting several other different allegations based on statements alleged to have been received from third parties. There is no evidence that Ms Atwell took steps to verify the truthfulness of the statements or that she requested either a comment or response from the claimants… Ms Atwell relied on the defence of justification but led not a scintilla of evidence to establish the truth of the defamatory statements,” the court found.
While the court noted that neither the hospital nor Dr Singh produced credible evidence of any pecuniary loss as a result of the publications, it said, “The allegations, which are undoubtedly serious, clearly injured Dr Singh’s feelings and caused distress… Her evidence is that she “no longer derives the same pleasure from treating patients as before the statements, now facing a sense of dread, fear, embarrassment and humiliation when tending to patients”.”
As such, the court ordered that Atwell pay $20,000,000 to Dr Singh and $15,000,000 to the hospital for the defamatory statements published. She was also ordered to pay costs of $3,150,000.
Further, she was ordered to remove or cause to be removed all the defamatory statements complained of from her Facebook account.
The claimants were represented by Robin Stoby, SC, Stephen Fraser SC and Shantel Scott-Lall.
Meanwhile, Atwell was represented by Attorneys Sanjeev Datadin, Donovan Rangiah, Anessa Chow and Mohanie Anagnaoo.