Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A former Caroni (1975) Ltd employee has failed in his final bid to pursue a lawsuit over being retrenched after refusing voluntary separation, almost two decades ago.
Delivering a judgment last Wednesday, five law lords of the United Kingdom-based Privy Council dismissed Anthony Noel Hosein’s final appeal over consecutive decisions by the local courts to refuse to hear his case due to his delay in pursuing it.
Lord Nicholas Hamblen, who delivered the Board’s decision, ruled that the Appeal Court could not be faulted for agreeing with a High Court Judge over the unwarranted delay.
“The Court of Appeal directed itself properly in law, addressed the relevant issues and reached a conclusion which was open to it. It did not err in law,” Lord Hamblen said.
Hosein was hired by the now-defunct State-owned sugar company as an estate constable in 1997.
In 2003, the then-government moved to shut down the company and offer Voluntary Separation Employment Packages (VSEP) to its employees.
Shortly after the decision was announced, the All Trinidad Sugar General Workers Trade Union obtained an injunction from the Industrial Court blocking the offer from the company.
The union and the company eventually came to an agreement under which employees, who had not initially accepted the offer, were given an extension to do so.
Hosein claimed that the extension was not extended to him and some colleagues.
While he claimed that he was told that he would be retrained and placed in another department of a successor company, Hosein was retrenched as the company was shut down.
In 2009, Hosein pursued a complaint under the Equal Opportunity Act.
However, it was eventually withdrawn while it was being considered by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal (EOT) as he claimed that it (the tribunal) was constitutionally compromised.
In 2020, Hosein filed a case claiming that his constitutional rights to equality before the law and protection of the law were breached.
In May 2022, Justice Carol Gobin dismissed the case for being an abuse of process based on Hosein’s inordinate delay in bringing it.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Hosein’s appeal as it agreed with their colleague.
“The Court of Appeal was clearly entitled to conclude that this was not a cogent reason for failing to bring a constitutional claim in a timely manner,” Lord Hamblen said, as he noted that Hosein chose to pursue and later discontinue the claim before the EOT.
Lord Hamblen stated that Hosein’s complaints over the apparent bias of the tribunal’s chair were unfounded as he could have raised such before the tribunal and allow it to weigh in on his discrimination claims.
He noted that Hosein also accused Justice Gobin of bias, based on her decision to direct that the Office of the Attorney General be notified of his case, but rightly withdrew the allegation during the final appeal.
“This was sensible case management by the judge...The mere fact that this happened also to be a communication between the judiciary and the executive does not begin to engage issues of separation of powers,” Lord Hamblen said.
Hosein was represented by Farai Hove-Masaisai and Chelsea Edwards, of Hove and Associates. The State was represented by Robert Strang.
