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

THA loses bid to overturn $18M default judgment

by

Derek Achong
3 days ago
20250313

The To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly (THA) has lost its bid to over­turn an $18 mil­lion de­fault judg­ment ob­tained against it by a con­tract­ing com­pa­ny, af­ter it failed to prop­er­ly de­fend its law­suit over un­paid fees. 

In a de­ci­sion de­liv­ered on Tues­day, High Court Judge Ricky Rahim dis­missed the THA’s ap­pli­ca­tion to set aside the de­fault judg­ment ob­tained by Nazvic Con­trac­tors Lim­it­ed in Feb­ru­ary last year. 

The com­pa­ny filed a breach of con­tract case in De­cem­ber 2023 in re­la­tion to sev­er­al con­tracts it per­formed for the THA. 

It claimed that al­though it com­plet­ed its oblig­a­tions un­der the con­tracts and the work was cer­ti­fied, it was not paid the $18,299,468 it was owed.

It ob­tained the de­fault judg­ment af­ter the THA failed to de­fend the case as re­quired un­der the Civ­il Pro­ceed­ings Rules. 

The THA ap­plied to set aside the judg­ment and sought re­lief from sanc­tions for fail­ing to reg­is­ter an ap­pear­ance and file a de­fence to the case. 

The THA claimed that it on­ly learned of the case when its Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture, Quar­ries and Ur­ban De­vel­op­ment (DIQUD) re­ceived no­tice of the de­fault judg­ment in April last year. 

The THA con­tend­ed that when the court doc­u­ments were served via reg­is­tered post in late 2023, they were ad­dressed to the “Sec­re­tary of the THA” and re­ceived by the Prop­er­ty Man­age­ment De­part­ment of the Of­fice of the Chief Sec­re­tary. 

It claimed that the of­fice and as­so­ci­at­ed de­part­ment were in the process of re­lo­cat­ing at the time, and the doc­u­ments were not im­me­di­ate­ly trans­ferred due to the “con­sid­er­able up­heaval and dis­ar­ray” caused by the move.

It al­leged that the di­vi­sion’s le­gal de­part­ment could not im­me­di­ate­ly ad­dress the de­fault judg­ment as staff had to in­ves­ti­gate the projects that were the sub­ject of the law­suits as such were com­plet­ed be­fore their tenure. 

While the THA made a part pay­ment of $2,282,800, it claimed that it need­ed time to have a quan­ti­ty sur­vey­or con­sid­er the con­tracts and de­ter­mine whether the sums claimed by the com­pa­ny for the work it per­formed were valid. 

Not­ing that the THA failed to file a de­fence de­spite mak­ing the ap­pli­ca­tion and did not sup­ply a sur­vey­or re­port, Jus­tice Rahim ruled that the THA failed to prove it had a pos­si­bil­i­ty of suc­cess­ful­ly de­fend­ing the case.

“The court, there­fore, finds that the de­fen­dant has failed to demon­strate that it has a re­al­is­tic prospect of suc­cess in the claim and fur­ther that its po­si­tion amounts mere­ly to spec­u­la­tion on its part based on the af­fi­davits be­fore the court,” he said. 

Jus­tice Rahim al­so re­ject­ed the THA’s ex­pla­na­tion for its de­lay in ad­dress­ing the judg­ment. 

“The court wish­es to make it clear that it is not of the view that this was ad­min­is­tra­tive in­ad­ver­tence but that this was a mat­ter of ei­ther pur­pose­ful (al­beit per­haps mis­guid­ed) or reck­less fail­ure to act as soon as it was rea­son­ably prac­ti­ca­ble so to do,” he said. 

He al­so re­ject­ed ad­di­tion­al claims that the de­lay was par­tial­ly due to DIQUD ad­min­is­tra­tor Karl Mur­ray be­ing too busy to give nec­es­sary in­struc­tions. 

“If blame is to be as­cribed, it can­not and ought not be placed sole­ly at the feet of Mur­ray. Need­less to say, this is a poor rea­son,” Jus­tice Rahim said. 

The com­pa­ny was rep­re­sent­ed by Tama­ra Toolsie and Sav­it­ri Sookraj-Be­har­ry. 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored