JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, March 15, 2025

NiQuan ordered to pay former VP $21 million

by

Asha Javeed
531 days ago
20231001

Lead Ed­i­tor In­ves­ti­ga­tions

asha.javeed@guardian.co.tt

Ni­Quan has been or­dered to pay its for­mer vice pres­i­dent—for­mer in­de­pen­dent sen­a­tor David Small—$20,647,017 mil­lion for breach of con­tract for monies owed to him dur­ing his em­ploy­ment.

The court judg­ment comes amid fi­nan­cial prob­lems plagu­ing the com­pa­ny which is close to US$300 mil­lion in debt.

Ni­Quan has gone of­fline be­cause it now has no per­mis­sion to op­er­ate from the Min­istry of En­er­gy and En­er­gy In­dus­tries (MEEI) and no nat­ur­al gas con­tract for the plant to con­tin­ue with the project.

Small was Ni­Quan’s vice pres­i­dent of Glob­al En­er­gy Ser­vices since 2015 and ex­it­ed the com­pa­ny in No­vem­ber 2021.

His res­ig­na­tion fol­lowed an email, dat­ed Oc­to­ber 20, 2021, in which he com­plained about ir­reg­u­lar pay­ments by the com­pa­ny which was af­fect­ing his abil­i­ty to make ends meet and pro­vide for his fam­i­ly.

For its part, Ni­Quan’s founder and chief vi­sion­ary of­fi­cer Ains­ley Gill ar­gued that Small was aware of the fi­nan­cial chal­lenges which the or­gan­i­sa­tion faced as a start-up and was un­rea­son­able in his re­quests.

Ac­cord­ing to court doc­u­ments, Small ne­go­ti­at­ed a mu­tu­al sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment from the or­gan­i­sa­tion with Gill for the sums and bonus owed to him dur­ing his tenure in Oc­to­ber 2021. How­ev­er, no pay­ments were made de­spite the spe­cif­ic dates agreed to and Small sub­se­quent­ly took le­gal ac­tion.

In a judg­ment de­liv­ered on Fri­day af­ter­noon, Jus­tice West­min James ruled in favour of Small and award­ed dam­ages for breach of con­tract in the sum of $18,575,880.40; ag­gra­vat­ed and ex­em­plary dam­ages in the sum of $1,116,273.00, in­ter­est at the rate of 2.5 per cent per an­num from the date of the breach, No­vem­ber 30, 2021, to the date of judg­ment, there­after statu­to­ry in­ter­est at the rate of five per cent per an­num un­til pay­ment as well as pre­scribed costs in the sum of $332,460.77.

There is a stay of ex­e­cu­tion on the judg­ment for 21 days.

In his rul­ing, James said that Gill’s con­duct “must be pun­ished and a pro­por­tion­ate award of ag­gra­vat­ed dam­ages must be made so as to re­flect the blame­wor­thi­ness of the de­fen­dant’s con­duct and to sig­nal that it will not be tol­er­at­ed or con­doned by the court”.

He not­ed that in the agree­ment reached be­tween Small and Gill, Small gave up his right to bring a claim against Gill for sum­ma­ry dis­missal in lieu of a ne­go­ti­at­ed set­tle­ment.

James de­scribed Gill’s ac­tions af­ter Small gave up his rights as “rep­re­hen­si­ble, as the con­duct was cal­cu­lat­ed to take ad­van­tage of every chance to de­lay pay­ing the claimant or not to pay him any­thing at all”.

“At the same time, the de­fen­dant got all that they want­ed out of the agree­ment. The claimant re­signed and was bound by a non-com­pete clause for 12 months, and they did not have to pay him monies he was owed or any salary dur­ing this time. The process which was en­gaged by the de­fen­dant in de­lay­ing all pay­ments and not mak­ing any pay­ment and the ex­cus­es were out­ra­geous, high-hand­ed and egre­gious to the court,” the judg­ment said.

Small not the first to sue for monies owed

Small is not the first vice pres­i­dent who has sued Ni­Quan for non-pay­ment of monies owed and has been suc­cess­ful in the courts.

In 2021, Eber­hard Lucke, for­mer vice pres­i­dent of Process En­gi­neer­ing and Tech­nol­o­gy sued the com­pa­ny in the Har­ris Coun­ty court in Texas, for sums owed to him—US$368,793. Lucke al­so com­plained about ir­reg­u­lar pay­ments from the com­pa­ny. On Jan­u­ary 6, 2022, he won his mat­ter and was award­ed US$435,000 by the court, which Ni­Quan paid.

James not­ed that Ni­Quan agreed to that pay­ment in the US courts “yet failed to ac­cept the claim here”.

“The be­hav­iour, im­prop­er mo­tives which fash­ioned the ac­tion un­der­tak­en by the de­fen­dant and the pure un­fair­ness as well as un­equal treat­ment has to be con­demned,” he said.

He said that giv­en the cir­cum­stances, the court be­lieved that ap­prox­i­mate­ly one year’s salary as an up­lift in dam­ages cal­cu­lat­ed at $1,116,273.00 is just and rea­son­able.

He not­ed that Small was em­ployed with the de­fen­dant with­out any his­to­ry of im­prop­er con­duct or the fail­ure to dis­charge his pro­fes­sion­al oblig­a­tions and re­ceived a rec­om­men­da­tion un­der the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment, but yet at the tri­al Gill “sought to im­pugn the pro­fes­sion­al­ism and con­duct” of his tenure.

Guardian Me­dia had ex­clu­sive­ly re­port­ed Small’s ex­it from Ni­Quan but at that time, he chose not to dis­cuss the mat­ter giv­en the le­gal pro­ceed­ings.

Small, who is now em­ployed as a prin­ci­pal con­sul­tant at David Small and As­so­ciates, has pre­vi­ous­ly worked at the Min­istry of En­er­gy and En­er­gy In­dus­tries and was a for­mer di­rec­tor at the Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny (NGC) be­fore his turn as an in­de­pen­dent sen­a­tor.

The claim–Small ver­sus Gill

Ac­cord­ing to Small’s wit­ness state­ment, for the ma­jor­i­ty of his em­ploy­ment at Ni­Quan he was un­paid.

His re­la­tion­ship with Gill fol­lowed from con­sul­tan­cy ser­vices he pro­vid­ed as a se­nior en­er­gy ad­vis­er for Gill’s Wash­ing­ton-based AGA Group.

That led to an of­fer of em­ploy­ment at Ni­Quan when Gill set about ac­quir­ing the Gas to Liq­uids (GTL) plant.

But the com­pa­ny was not well cap­i­talised and had cash-flow chal­lenges from the start.

“A pat­tern de­vel­oped where­by the de­fen­dant would fail or refuse to pay me the sums due to me un­der the con­tract of em­ploy­ment or de­lay in pay­ing the same. This was done uni­lat­er­al­ly on their part and I ob­ject­ed to the ar­bi­trary man­ner in which my month­ly salary pay­ments were be­ing made,” he said.

Small said in May 2021, he re­quest­ed a state­ment of his in­sur­ance con­tri­bu­tions from the Na­tion­al In­sur­ance Board.

“Up­on re­ceipt of the state­ment dat­ed June 28, 2021, it showed that for the year 2018 on­ly four con­tri­bu­tions were record­ed, and ze­ro con­tri­bu­tions were made for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021 to date. I be­came very con­cerned be­cause Ni­Quan was ob­lig­at­ed by law to pay my NIS con­tri­bu­tions and the fail­ure to do so would ad­verse­ly af­fect the val­ue of my pen­sion and re­tire­ment ben­e­fits from the Na­tion­al In­sur­ance Board,” he said.

With mount­ing bills, he sent an email on Oc­to­ber 20, 2021, seek­ing to de­ter­mine when he would be paid by the com­pa­ny and out­lined the sums owed to him.

Fol­low­ing a meet­ing at Gill’s Good­wood Park home on the mat­ter, he agreed to re­sign and an agree­ment for pay­ment of out­stand­ing sums was ne­go­ti­at­ed. It was agreed that he would be paid his to­tal sum over a three-month pe­ri­od with the bonus by March 2022.

Gill agreed in the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment to of­fer Small $116,273.00 as pay­ment in lieu of no­tice, $465,092.00 as an ex gra­tia pay­ment, $890,830.06 as pay­ment in re­spect of ac­crued but un­tak­en an­nu­al va­ca­tion leave; $3,412,855.28 be­ing ac­crued salary un­paid up to the pe­ri­od Sep­tem­ber 2021 and the sum of $12,800,000 be­ing the one-time bonus pay­ment.

Small said the agree­ment was ne­go­ti­at­ed in “good faith”.

As part of the agree­ment, Small agreed to not take le­gal ac­tion for his dis­missal and to not work in a com­pet­ing en­ti­ty for one year.

“As an em­ploy­er, Ni­Quan has failed to ho­n­our their oblig­a­tions de­spite be­ing made aware of my pre­car­i­ous fi­nan­cial po­si­tion. In­stead, Ni­Quan has sought to ex­ploit that by forc­ing me in­to lit­i­ga­tion that I can ill af­ford. Un­til I took le­gal ac­tion my pleas and cries were sim­ply ig­nored, and I was left to floun­der in the midst of the crip­pling pan­dem­ic,” Small said.

How­ev­er af­ter the first and sec­ond pay­ments were missed, Small said he fol­lowed up and was in­formed that the com­pa­ny would pay him when mon­ey be­comes avail­able.

He is­sued a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter in Feb­ru­ary 2022 and pur­sued le­gal ac­tion there­after.

In the time that fol­lowed, Small told the court that he and his fam­i­ly were fi­nan­cial­ly chal­lenged and his phys­i­cal and men­tal health de­te­ri­o­rat­ed.

In his af­fi­davit, Gill ad­mit­ted to the agree­ment but said it was con­di­tion­al on the plant achiev­ing com­mer­cial op­er­a­tions date (COD) and not be­fore.

In­stead, he said Small was un­rea­son­able in his re­quest for sums owed to him giv­en that he un­der­stood, as a vice pres­i­dent of the or­gan­i­sa­tion, the fi­nan­cial chal­lenges which the com­pa­ny faced.

“Fur­ther, by this of­fer of em­ploy­ment, the claimant was of­fered a one-time bonus of $12,800,000.00 payable when the fol­low­ing con­di­tion was sat­is­fied, name­ly up­on the suc­cess­ful fi­nan­cial close for the GTL Plant,” Gill said.

Small said that in en­er­gy lan­guage, fi­nan­cial close was fi­nanc­ing the project and com­plet­ing the con­struc­tion.

In his af­fi­davit, Gill claimed that fi­nan­cial close was COD which the plant has not yet achieved.

Gill said he made an ex­cep­tion for Small and per­mit­ted him to work and earn salary and emol­u­ments as an in­de­pen­dent sen­a­tor in the Trinidad & To­ba­go Par­lia­men­tary Up­per House and as a Non-Ex­ec­u­tive Di­rec­tor of The Bea­con In­sur­ance Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed.

“The claimant had lim­it­ed re­spon­si­bil­i­ties giv­en the fact that the de­fen­dant was not op­er­a­tional at ma­te­r­i­al times and was not in­volved in any glob­al en­er­gy ser­vices,” he said.

“It is the de­fen­dant’s po­si­tion that this de­mand of the claimant was whol­ly un­re­al­is­tic and un­rea­son­able giv­en the in­creased fi­nan­cial strain ex­pe­ri­enced by the de­fen­dant fol­low­ing what was a ma­jor blowout of the hy­dro­c­rack­er strip­per col­umn of the de­fen­dant’s Gas to Liq­uids Plant and the con­se­quent fire dam­age there­on which oc­curred on April 7, 2021. The claimant’s de­mand was al­so un­rea­son­able giv­en the lack of fi­nan­cial re­sources of the de­fen­dant and the acute­ly short time to pay al­so hav­ing re­gard to the course of deal­ings be­tween the par­ties. It is the de­fen­dant’s po­si­tion that the claimant, as an ex­ec­u­tive of Ni­Quan, was or ought to have been well aware that pay­ment would be made to him on­ly when the de­fen­dant com­pa­ny had rev­enues from com­mer­cial op­er­a­tions or was able to raise suf­fi­cient debt and/or eq­ui­ty fi­nanc­ing,” Gill said.

Small was rep­re­sent­ed by at­tor­neys Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, Jared Ja­groo and Robert Ab­dool-Mitchel from Free­dom Cham­bers while Gill was rep­re­sent­ed by at­tor­neys Ken­neth Shawn Ma­hase and Van­dana Ben­ny.

NiQuan


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored