Judge reverses defamation ruling in favour of Tobago businessman Allan Warner
15 April 2025
TOBAGO business magnate Allan Warner and his son, Aluko, are expected to appeal a judge’s revocation of his ruling in favour of their defamation lawsuit against a local newspaper.
On April 11, the judge overseeing the Warners’ defamation claim against the Trinidad Guardian newspaper delivered an oral ruling in their favour, entering judgment in default of a defence being filed by the newspaper.
However, on April 14, the judge recalled his ruling and the orders he had made “upon mature reflection and reconsideration.”
The judge said it was the court’s respectful view that “it did not properly consider the principles in the matter and, having reconsidered it, is of the view that it should change its decision.”
In his amended ruling, Justice Devindra Rampersad’s new order, in part, said, “the court will exercise its discretion to not enter judgment in default of defence…”
Instead, he extended the time for the media house to serve its defence, which has to be done by April 15, while ordering that the defence that was filed on October 29, 2024, will stand.
The new order also ordered the media house to pay the Warners’ costs for an application to end the time for the filing of its defence.
The matter was adjourned to June 27 for a case management conference. When contacted, the Warners’ attorneys said it was a very unusual turn of events for a trial judge to grant judgment in favour of their clients on a Friday and by Monday completely change his mind. They intend to explore every avenue that is fair and just.
The Warners’ claim against the media house and its reporter concerns two articles and corresponding social media posts relating to illegal quarrying investigations by police. Their claim contended that they have suffered shame and embarrassment because of the allegations made against them, affecting not only their family life but also their businesses, leaving them traumatised by “persistent and relentless attacks” on their characters.
“The severity of these allegations can vastly spread and go viral, and quickly grasp the attention of speculative, gossip-loving, investigative and political, social and economic conspiracy theorists who are among the plethora of readers of the second defendant's publications.”
In his revised ruling, Rampersad noted the defendants had a realistic prospect of success and admitted he had misconstrued the principles of a binding ruling on default judgments and “felt the need to revisit that authority and found that it had misconstrued and improperly applied the guidance set out therein.
“Upon careful reconsideration of the authority, which is binding on this court, the court, unfortunately, feels compelled to recall its order made on 11 April 2025 and make a new order…”
He also noted that his April 11 order had not yet been perfected.
