Lisa Hanna facing $8 million film fight

Businesswoman Lisa Hanna is facing an $8-million lawsuit over an aborted documentary project, with Neish Creative Group Limited, the production company behind the film, accusing her of breaching their agreement.

Hanna has, however, fired back with a defamation counterclaim against the company’s principal, Jason Neish, over a message he allegedly sent to her husband, and is seeking damages for interference with her marital relationship.

Neish Creative Group Limited is seeking $8,051,265 from Hanna, alleging that she breached a production services agreement for the documentary and has not honoured the service invoice.

Hanna, however, is challenging the claim on both procedural and substantive grounds. In her defence, she contends that Neish Creative’s Statement of Case, which she described as “an abuse of the court process, frivolous and vexatious”, is misconceived and should be struck out or, alternatively, stayed.

Specifically, Hanna alleges that Neish Creative has not identified any act or omission on her part that amounted to a breach of the alleged contractual terms. She also argues that the company’s Particulars of Claim contain inconsistencies or contradictions concerning facts essential to its case.

Hanna is also contending that the company failed to complete or deliver the project within the specified time and should not be entitled to payment.

According to the particulars of claim filed by the production company last week, the parties entered into an agreement in January 2025 for Neish Creative to produce a documentary chronicling aspects of Hanna’s personal and professional life.

The proposed production period ran from February 1 to July 31, 2025, with a budget of about J$8.1 million, excluding taxes, licensing and research costs. A post-production schedule was to be determined later.

Neish said a service agreement prepared following discussions with Hanna was amended and updated but was never signed.

The company is nevertheless contending that the parties operated under the agreement and that Hanna’s failure to secure interviewees caused significant delays and additional costs.

Neish said responsibility for securing interviewees rested with Hanna and her representatives, primarily her agent, Kym Wyatt.

The company said nine production days were scheduled between March and August 2025, but only five were used because the interviewees failed to appear for four shoots.

“On numerous occasions, after the claimant incurred expense to set up for filming, the talent/interviewees to be procured by the defendant failed to appear on the agreed dates,” the company said.

Neish said the delays made it impossible to complete the documentary by July 31, resulting in the shooting schedule being pushed into August.

The company also said Hanna’s team requested a trailer for her August 20 birthday, although the original arrangement provided for a trailer to be produced after filming was completed.

Despite the short notice, Neish said the trailer was produced and delivered on August 18 but was not used.

In September 2025, Neish Creative sent a revised bill, which it said reflected reductions made because of the production difficulties. Following further discussions with Hanna’s representatives, the fees were reduced again.

After a meeting in December, the company said it sent an updated budget to allow a final invoice to be prepared, but no agreement was reached.

Alleged non-performance

In January, Hanna’s attorney reportedly communicated that she did not intend to be bound by the terms of the agreement and alleged non-performance by Neish Creative.

Neish rejected that position and maintained that Hanna’s failure to secure interviewees had contributed to the delays.

The company is seeking J$8,051,265 in damages, together with interest at 12.09 per cent compounded annually from February 26, 2026, or such other interest as the court considers appropriate.

It is also asking the court to prevent Hanna from receiving raw footage, assets and other content from the production until the sums claimed, interest and costs are paid.

Hanna, however, disputes that there was a binding written contract.

In her defence and counterclaim filed in June, Hanna said that the production services agreement prepared by Neish was never signed or accepted by her and that the parties instead operated under an oral understanding reached around mid-February 2025.

Under Hanna’s version, a fundamental condition of the production was the delivery of a trailer on or before August 18 for airing on her birthday, August 20. She says payment was to follow delivery of a finished, fit-for-purpose production.

Hanna alleges that Neish Creative breached the agreement by failing to complete and deliver a usable trailer or final product within the agreed time, or at all. As a result, she contends that the consideration for any agreed payment to the company wholly failed.

She further argues that all footage captured to date is now of no commercial value to her.

“It was captured without proper releases from interviewees, lacks the necessary B-roll and narrative structure to form a coherent documentary, and cannot be used for the defendant’s intended purpose of airing on her 50th birthday, a milestone which grounded the purpose of the documentary and which has long passed,” she said in her counterclaim.

Scheduling interviews

Hanna also disputes Neish’s claim that she and her agents were responsible for scheduling interviews with prospective guests.

She says that responsibility rested with Neish, although she assisted by providing names and contact information as a courtesy.

Hanna maintains that Neish Creative failed to deliver a completed documentary and that she should not be required to pay for incomplete work.

She is seeking damages for breach of contract, detinue and conversion of her property, including footage, film, sound recordings and other material captured during the production.

In respect of the counterclaim, Hanna alleges that the “malicious” text was sent for the purpose of blackmail and to pressure her husband or her to pay, or as a threat to publish film footage containing statements she allegedly made during filming unless the disputed sum was paid.

Hanna claims that Neish acted with express malice and that the communication interfered with her marital relationship.

She is seeking damages, including aggravated or exemplary damages, as well as an injunction preventing further dissemination of the message and an order for its deletion.

Neish denies that the words were defamatory or communicated maliciously.

The defence maintains that the remarks were based on statements Hanna made during an interview and that Neish honestly believed them to be true.

The company also contends that the comments were communicated to Hanna’s husband, Lake, in good faith.

Documentary footage

Neish rejects Hanna’s allegation that he caused disruption to her marriage or damaged her reputation, arguing instead that if any harm was caused, Hanna was responsible.

The defence points to a reported response from Lake, who is quoted as saying: “I love my wife and wish her to be happy, whether she says good or bad things about me now or anytime in the future.”

The parties are also divided over the documentary footage.

Hanna says Neish Creative has no legal right to retain, use, license or exploit footage, recordings and other material containing her image, likeness, life story and creative contributions.

Neish denies any unauthorised use of Hanna’s intellectual property, but maintains that it has a lien over the footage until reasonable fees are paid.

The company says it incurred about J$7 million in expenses for equipment, crew, locations and other production costs, before reducing the amount to approximately J$4 million.

According to Neish, Hanna’s team subsequently offered J$2 million, which the company rejected as inadequate.

Neish and his company are being represented by attorney Sean Castle, while Gordon Robinson is representing Hanna.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com