Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A former soldier has been given the green light to continue his lawsuit against the State over the failure to pay his gratuity and benefits after he resigned in 2021.
In a recent decision, High Court Judge Karen Reid dismissed a preliminary application from the Office of the Attorney General to strike out the case brought by Devin Reid (no relation).
Her decision means that Reid’s substantive case will now be heard and considered by her.
According to the evidence in the case, Reid joined the T&T Defence Force (TTDF) in late 2009 and resigned at the rank of Lance Corporal after serving for a little over 12 years.
In the lawsuit, Reid is claiming $303,000 in damages, which represents the gratuity he claims that he is entitled to, a refund on his pension plan contributions, and back pay for a four per cent salary increase that took effect before he resigned.
The damages claimed also cover the embarrassment and distress he allegedly endured after the TTDF delayed paying his last salary.
Reid claimed that the delay led to him falling behind on his monthly mortgage payments and his car was seized and sold by the bank.
He claimed that his constitutional rights were breached by the TTDF’s failure to make the payments.
In its application, the AG’s Office contended that the constitutional case was an abuse of process as Reid could have brought different legal proceedings to resolve the issue.
Dismissing the application, Justice Reid noted that military personnel are not permitted to pursue lawsuits for breach of statutory duty.
“I am prepared to find that there is insufficient material before the court to come to a finding that the Claimant had an effective alternative remedy in an ordinary claim for breach of statutory duty so as to make these present proceedings an abuse of process,” Justice Reid said.
Justice Reid did agree to strike out an aspect of Reid’s case alleging that his constitutional right to enjoyment of property was infringed.
“Since a military officer cannot sue to recover any loss of income or emoluments, he has no right in any property that is capable of constituting the foundation of a motion for deprivation of property contrary to section 4(a),” she said.
The case is scheduled to come up for case management on April 30.
Reid was represented by Ronald Simon, while Trisha Ramlogan, Felisha Villaruel, Kristyn Lewis, and Murvani Ojah-Maharaj represented the AG’s Office.