Appeal Court rejects GLC push to dump ruling for retired judge in defamation case

The General Legal Council (GLC), which regulates the legal profession, has failed to have a court strike out retired judge Jennes Vashiti Anderson’s defamation lawsuit against it.

Last week, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the GLC, which was seeking to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court ruling by Justice Tara Carr.

The case has been remitted to the Supreme Court for case management orders to be considered before a different judge pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules.

The former parish judge’s claim for defamation stemmed from a complaint brought against her in 2006 by then GLC member Eileen Boxhill.

It was alleged in the complaint that Anderson failed to file accountant’s reports and/or declarations for the years 2000 to 2004.

When the complaint was laid in July 2006, Anderson, an attorney-at-law, was serving as a resident magistrate (now parish court judge).

Anderson had made a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the GLC’s Disciplinary Committee to hear the complaint in light of her appointment to a judicial office.

However, she was found guilty of professional misconduct, and on April 26, 2014, she was reprimanded and ordered to pay costs of $350,000. The decision and the reasons of the Disciplinary Committee were published on the GLC’s website.

Anderson appealed the decision, and on July 31, 2018, the Court of Appeal threw out the finding and sanction on the basis that the disciplinary committee had no jurisdiction over a judicial officer.

Anderson has complained further that in light of the 2018 appeal court decision, the GLC continued to publish the 2014 decision on its website without any notation of the reversal of the decision.

She also complained that the GLC published the 2014 decision in its annual report.

Anderson filed a defamation claim in the Supreme Court in 2021 and contends that the GLC “invited, facilitated, and/or encouraged the republication” of the decision by others.

The publications and republications, according to Anderson, contained false statements that were defamatory of her character and geared at subjecting her to ridicule and lowering her reputation in the estimation of others.

Fair comment

The GLC has refuted the claim and contends that it did not publish any material that defamed Anderson at any time.

It further argued that any publications regarding the claimant were true and published in circumstances which were absolutely privileged or subject to qualified privilege. The GLC is also relying on the defence of fair comment, noting that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee is a matter of record.

In July 2020, then chairman of the GLC Allan Wood, KC, said he received a letter from Anderson in which she complained about the continued posting of the 2014 decision, according to his affidavit.

He said he responded, advising Anderson, among other things, that he would request the GLC to either remove the 2014 disciplinary committee’s decision or post it alongside the 2018 appeal court decision.

Woods said his response was not an admission or acceptance that the GLC had defamed Anderson.

On February 12, 2021, the GLC applied to the Supreme Court, seeking a determination as to whether the words or publication that Anderson had complained about were defamatory.

Justice Carr heard the application, and on May 13, 2022, ruled that the actions were capable of defamation. She refused the application to strike out Anderson’s claim.

The GLC filed four grounds of appeal, contending that the judge erred in her decision and also stated that it was no longer pursuing the request for summary judgment as that was not available in the context of a defamation claim.

In upholding the Supreme Court ruling, the appeal court, comprising Justices Jennifer Straw, Nicole Simmons, and Viviene Harris, said “there is no basis to challenge her (Justice Carr’s) conclusions ... either legally or factually as the words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning”.

The court said Justice Carr was careful to point out that the issue she found “most compelling “ was the timing of the publication and concluded that whether the GLC as a legal entity could claim absolute privilege for the continued publication of the 2014 decision after the 2018 decision must be determined at a trial.

“Although the GLC has submitted that it is merely a legal issue, a review of Anderson’s letter and the particulars of claim demonstrates that she took issue not only with the publication of the decision after 2018 but also with the publication of a summary of the decision set out in a tabular format on the GLC’s website. This would, therefore, beg the question of whether such summaries, in such a context, could also be subject to the defence raised by the GLC, that is, absolute privilege, “ the Court of Appeal said in its June 14 judgment.

It was also the court’s ruling that whether absolute privilege applied in Anderson’s case and the extent, if any, to which it may apply then it could be treated as a preliminary issue for determination.

“This should reflect mature reflection and submissions on all the issues and relevant authorities on the point. Such a decision could be made before the trial of the defamation claim. If absolute privilege obtains, the claim should be struck out. If it is determined that absolute privileges attached only to certain aspects of the impugned publications then those portions of the claim should be struck out,” the court directed.

Legal costs were awarded to Anderson, who was the respondent in the appeal.

The law firm Grant, Stewart, Phillips & Co represented the GLC while attorney Carol Davis represented Anderson.

- Barbara Gayle