Businesswoman and former government minister Lisa Hanna is facing an $8-million lawsuit stemming from a failed documentary project, as a disagreement over production delays, unpaid fees and ownership of footage develops into a wider legal battle.
According to a report in the Jamaica Gleaner, Neish Creative Group Limited is seeking J$8,051,265 from Hanna, alleging that she breached an agreement for the production of a documentary chronicling aspects of her personal and professional life.
Hanna has rejected the claim and filed a counterclaim, accusing the production company of failing to deliver the documentary as agreed. She has also brought a defamation claim against the company’s principal, Jason Neish, over a message he allegedly sent to her husband.
According to the production company’s claim, discussions between the parties resulted in a production services agreement in January 2025. The proposed production period was February 1 to July 31, 2025, with a budget of approximately J$8.1 million, excluding taxes and certain additional costs.
Although the written agreement was never signed, Neish Creative contends that both sides proceeded on the basis of its terms.
The company alleges that Hanna and her representatives were responsible for securing interviewees for the documentary and that several scheduled participants failed to appear. It says nine production days were arranged between March and August 2025, but only five were used.
Neish Creative claims those disruptions resulted in additional expenses and made it impossible to complete filming by the original July 31 deadline.
The company further says Hanna’s team requested a trailer in time for her August 20 birthday. It maintains that a trailer was delivered on August 18 but was ultimately not used.
After attempts to resolve the outstanding production costs failed, the dispute eventually moved to court.
Hanna Rejects $8M Claim
Hanna is challenging both the existence of the alleged written contract and the production company’s account of what went wrong.
She says the unsigned production services agreement was never accepted and that the parties instead operated under an oral understanding reached around February 2025.
Under Hanna’s version of events, delivery of a suitable trailer by August 18 was a fundamental part of the arrangement because it was intended to coincide with her 50th birthday celebrations.
She alleges that Neish Creative failed to provide a completed, fit-for-purpose production and argues that the company should therefore not be entitled to the money it is claiming.
Hanna also disputes the allegation that she or her representatives were responsible for scheduling the documentary’s interviewees. She maintains that responsibility belonged to the production company, although she assisted by providing names and contact information.
She further contends that the footage already recorded has lost its intended commercial value because the milestone birthday around which the documentary was planned has passed.
Battle Over Documentary Footage
The dispute also extends to ownership and control of the footage already captured.
Hanna argues that Neish Creative has no right to retain, use, license or exploit material featuring her image, likeness, life story and creative contributions. Her counterclaim seeks remedies relating to the footage, sound recordings and other production materials.
Neish Creative denies improperly using Hanna’s intellectual property and maintains that it is entitled to retain the material while fees remain unpaid.
The company says it incurred millions of dollars in production expenses involving crew, equipment, locations and other costs.
Defamation Counterclaim Adds New Twist
The legal fight has also moved beyond the documentary itself.
Hanna alleges that Neish sent a malicious message to her husband in an attempt to pressure her into paying the disputed production bill or in connection with the possible release of statements allegedly made during filming.
She claims the communication was defamatory and interfered with her marital relationship, and is seeking damages as well as an injunction against further dissemination of the message.
Neish denies acting maliciously or defaming Hanna. His defence maintains that the comments were based on statements Hanna allegedly made during an interview and that he believed them to be true.
Court to Decide Competing Accounts
The dispute leaves the court to consider sharply different accounts of the documentary arrangement, including whether an enforceable agreement existed, what its terms were, who was responsible for the production delays and whether payment is owed.
The court may also have to determine the parties’ respective rights to the documentary footage and address Hanna’s separate allegations arising from the communication with her husband.
Neish and Neish Creative Group Limited are represented by attorney Sean Castle, while Hanna is represented by attorney Gordon Robinson.
The allegations and counter-allegations remain contested, and the filing of the lawsuit does not constitute a finding that Hanna owes the amount being claimed.
