A former director of the Eastern Credit Union (ECU) who sued the institution’s former president for defamation and slander for statements made in 2015 has again lost in the Court of Appeal.
On June 18, Justice Vasheist Kokaram dismissed the appeal of ex-ECU director Harvey Borris in his lawsuit against ex-president Wayne Estrada for statements made in two media interviews on November 26, 2015, published in the Newsday newspaper and a radio interview on i95.5FM two days earlier, about the purchase of a property in Sangre Grande.
In June 2022, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed Borris’ lawsuit, holding it was devoid of merit.
Borris then appealed, but Kokaram shared the same view, saying the grounds for challenging Seepersad’s ruling were unmeritorious, as they were vague and provided no identifying basis to support the argument that the judge erred in law.
He also dismissed Borris's application to extend the time to file the record of appeal and ordered him to pay Estrada’s costs for defending the appeal and an application to strike it out because of the late filing.
The judge delivered an oral decision but said he would amplify in writing if the matter is appealed further.
In his lawsuit, Borris said he disclosed to the ECU’s housing committee in 2013 that his brother owned the property in Sangre Grande, and repeatedly recused himself from any discussion on the credit union's purchase of properties.
At first, the ECU agreed to buy the property, but then bought another, known as Las Viviendas, instead.
Borris claimed Estrada’s statements in the newspaper and on the radio programme were defamatory of him, since they suggested he was against the purchase of the Las Viviendas property and was the cause of friction at the ECU.
In dismissing the claim, Seepersad said he had first to consider whether the words Borris complained of were defamatory, although he was not identified by name in the newspaper article. Borris had claimed he would have been identifiable because of a tagline he used, “I love my country.”
However, Seepersad said this tagline did not feature in the newspaper article, and Borris had to plead and prove the article contained facts which would have identified him.
In his findings on the radio interview, Seepersad said although Borris claimed Estrada had used the tagline, he also failed to establish he had been identified.
“The phrase was not singularly unique nor exceptional nor was there evidence to establish that it was readily associated with the claimant and no other person,” the judge said.
Borris also claimed he was removed from the ECU’s board and was unable to seek re-election because of the damage to his reputation, but the judge also held he had not discharged the evidential burden to prove this.
Seepersad addressed Estrada’s qualified privilege, truth and fair-comment defences, saying he was entitled to address the legitimate concerns of the membership, given that the court found Borris was at meetings when the property purchase was discussed and that his presence
