NBN coughs up $175,000 for Logie libel case

With plans  to restructure Govern-ment-owned National Broadcasting Network (NBN), former West Indies  star batsman Augustine (Gus) Logie, got the Appeal Court to order NBN to put up $175,000 security for costs in a libel matter Logie has against NBN. However, appellate judge Justice Stanley John, who heard the matter, declined to grant an order prohibiting NBN from transferring assets in order to protect any award of damages that the court may make. Logie had sued NBN and sports commentator Ruskin Mark for libel arising out of a television broadcast on November 2, 2000. Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer heard arguments in the case and entered judgment in favour of Logie on December 2, 2002. He also ordered that damages for Logie be assessed by a Master in Chambers. NBN appealed the matter.

Meanwhile, Government announ-ced its plans to restructure NBN and marry it with a new Government Information Service. The announcement in December 2002 prompted Logie’s attorney Dr Claude Denbow SC to seek relief through the Court of Appeal. In amended  summons filed in the Court on May 14, 2003,  Logie asked for security of costs of the appeal and an order preventing NBN from disposing its assets within TT up to a maximum of such sums as the Court may deem fit in aid of recovery by Logie of his entitlement: (a) The costs awarded to him in the High Court proceedings. (b) The award of damages to be assessed. In a written judgement delivered on December 17, Justice John noted the financial straits NBN had found itself in and may be unable to pay the costs of the appeal if NBN was unsuccessful.

Logie’s application, the judge observed, fell within the category of special circumstances. He also noted that in making such order it is a discretion which the court would exercise only after considering all the circumstances of the particular case. John said: “I am therefore called upon to carry out a delicate balancing exercise. This is not the type of case where an order for security would prevent the appellant (NBN) from pursuing the appeal, so any order for security cannot be considered to be an instrument of oppression. It has not been clearly demonstrated before me that there is a high degree of probability of success and therefore I have not gone into the merits in any detail. I am of the opinion that the appellant company can provide security and I would exercise my discretion in favour of the respondent (Logie), and make an order for security for costs. Such order, however, will not be in the amount claimed. I will make an order for the sum of $175,000.” On the second part of the relief to prevent NBN from transferring assets, Justice John said: “I decline so to do. The damages, as far as I am aware, have not yet been assessed, and I think in the circumstances it would not be prudent for the court to grant such relief.” Representing NBN was attorney Ian Benjamin.