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.