Judge throws out former GPL Director’s defamation case against Guyana Times

A High Court Judge on Tuesday dismissed Kirk Hollingsworth’s lawsuit against the Guyana Times and its Editor-in-Chief Tusika Martin, in which the former Guyana Power and Light (GPL) Director said the newspaper defamed him by publishing that he corruptly obtained 3000 acres of prime land.
Hollingsworth, in his Statement of Claim, argued that on November 11, 2019, Guyana Times published an article titled “Over 3000 acres of prime land allocated to GPL Director”, which caused reasonable readers to conclude that the award of the land was part of a corrupt and clandestine transaction to enrich him with assets of the State of Guyana.
He contended, among other things, that the publications were calculated to lower his reputation in the estimation of right-thinking persons in society, render him the subject of disapproval and rejection by Guyanese, and negatively affect his credibility, character, and reputation.

Consequently, Hollingsworth, through Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde sued the newspapers, claiming inter alia damages for libel and injunctive reliefs.
As such, Guyana Times Attorney Devindra Kissoon filed a Notice of Application to strike out the claim on the basis that there were no reasonable grounds for bringing it; the contents of the article published by the media outlet were absolutely privileged; and the contents of the article were not defamatory/libelous of Hollingsworth.
Kissoon argued that the newspaper’s statements were privileged as it did no more than publish a fair and accurate report of the notice published in the Official Gazette. Moreover, he said the publication was not actuated by malice as it was published honestly and innocently.

Presiding Judge Priya Sewnarine-Beharry ruled that the article did not constitute defamation.
In her written judgement, she said the Declaration of Title for the land was erroneously reported in the Official Gazette. “There is no contention on the part of [Hollingsworth] that the Applicants [Guyana Times and Martin] were aware that the notice published in the Gazette was inaccurate.”
“In fact, Section 7(b) of the Official Gazette Act allowed the Applicants without more to treat the notice published in the Gazette as prima facie evidence of the matters and things contained in the notification/ publication,” Justice Sewnarine-Beharry held.
“The words/statements published by the Guyana Times which were premised on the publication in the Official Gazette, could not in the circumstances be anything other than a fair and accurate report protected by Sections 13 and 14 of the Defamation Act and are absolutely privileged.”
In the circumstances, the Judge ruled that the article was not defamatory to Hollingsworth.
Assuming that the ordinary reasonable reader would have concluded that Hollingsworth acquired the land, that the acquisition of the land was an award, and that the acquisition of the land was a result of an application he made, the Judge said she did not believe that the ordinary reasonable reader would have concluded that the award of the land was corrupt and clandestine since there was nothing in the article to suggest such.
In light of her findings, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry said Hollingsworth’s claim “does not appear to set out sufficient details to inform the Applicants of the case they were required to meet.”
Given the foregoing, she said Guyana Times’ submission that he has no reasonable grounds for
bringing the claim is meritorious. In the circumstances, the claim was struck and costs were awarded to the two applicants jointly in the sum of $200,000.