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.

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Judge avoids ruling on who should collect rent

MovieTowne tenants in limbo

by

183 days ago
20240827
Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell

Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell

COURTESY THE JUDICIARY

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

Ten­ants at Movi­eTowne Port-of-Spain will have to seek le­gal ad­vice on who they should pay their rent to at the end of the week, as their land­lord con­tin­ues its le­gal ac­tion over a move to re­pos­sess the en­ter­tain­ment and shop­ping com­plex.

Last Fri­day, the Port-of-Spain In­fra­struc­ture Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed (POS­IN­CO), which man­ages land held by the Port Au­thor­i­ty of T&T (PATT), sought to take con­trol of the com­plex over $10,904,121.23 in rental ar­rears al­leged­ly owed by Trin­ba­go Com­mer­cial De­vel­op­ment Com­pa­ny Ltd (TCDC), own­ers of Movi­eTowne.

Less than 24 hours lat­er, how­ev­er, TCDC ob­tained an in­junc­tion block­ing POS­IN­CO from is­su­ing com­mu­ni­ca­tions to its ten­ants, who were pre­vi­ous­ly told by the au­thor­i­ty that they had to make new arrange­ments with it over their con­tin­ued oc­cu­pa­tion of the venue.

When the case came up for hear­ing be­fore Jus­tice Eleanor Don­ald­son-Hon­ey­well, yes­ter­day, she re­fused to de­cide who should col­lect rent while the lit­i­ga­tion con­tin­ues.

TCDC lawyer Deb­o­rah Peake, SC, re­quest­ed that the ten­ants con­tin­ue pay­ing rent to her client, as she not­ed its abil­i­ty to keep the fa­cil­i­ty op­er­a­tional would be af­fect­ed by a lack of in­come.

“The claimant is be­ing placed in an in­evitable po­si­tion of not be­ing able to pay its li­a­bil­i­ties, in­clud­ing util­i­ties, se­cu­ri­ty, and main­te­nance fees,” she said.

At­tor­ney Christlyn Moore, who rep­re­sent­ed one ten­ant, ques­tioned whether pay­ing rent to the court would be a bet­ter op­tion.

“If we con­tin­ue to pay rent to the claimant (TCDC), would the de­fen­dant (POS­IN­CO) pur­sue us lat­er?” Moore asked.

Jus­tice Don­ald­son-Hon­ey­well was ini­tial­ly mind­ed to al­low the TCDC to con­tin­ue to col­lect the rent but de­cid­ed against the or­der af­ter POS­IN­CO lawyer Justin Phelps, SC, point­ed out that she did not have ev­i­dence from all the ten­ants who stood to be af­fect­ed.

Peake chal­lenged the po­si­tion.

“The claimant can’t speak for them be­cause they are our ten­ants and we must pro­tect their in­ter­ests. They (the ten­ants) are un­sure what to do and it may be un­like­ly to pay their rent un­til this is de­ter­mined,” Peake said.

She not­ed that TCDC was will­ing to re­pay the rent it re­ceives if it los­es its case with POS­IN­CO.

De­spite the con­cerns raised by Peake, Jus­tice Don­ald­son-Hon­ey­well still re­fused to grant the or­der and left it open to ten­ants to pay their rent to TCDC, POS­IN­CO, or the court af­ter seek­ing in­di­vid­ual le­gal ad­vice.

While there was strong dis­agree­ment on who should re­ceive the rent, TCDC and POS­IN­CO did agree on some is­sues in the case.

TCDC agreed that it would pay $3 mil­lion to the court, which will be held in es­crow un­til the sub­stan­tive case over the ar­rears is de­ter­mined.

POS­IN­CO al­so agreed not to in­ter­fere with the leas­es and op­er­a­tions of the ten­ants and TCDC.

Ear­li­er in the hear­ing, Peake claimed that POS­IN­CO had sta­tioned guards at her client’s ad­min­is­tra­tive of­fice and the com­plex’s ban­quet and con­fer­ence cen­tre. She said ad­min­is­tra­tive staff took al­most 20 min­utes to gain ac­cess to the of­fice to pre­pare a cheque.

Jus­tice Don­ald­son-Hon­ey­well not­ed that she could not en­ter­tain the claims, as they were not for­mal­ly filed as ev­i­dence be­fore her.

The dis­pute be­tween the par­ties re­lates to a lease for the 9.9 acres (4.0236 hectares) of land off the Au­drey Jef­fers High­way at In­vad­er’s Bay in Port-of-Spain, oc­cu­pied by the com­plex.

Be­fore con­struc­tion be­gan on the com­plex in 2001, the month­ly rent was re­port­ed­ly $6,500 per month based on a rate of 1.5 cents per square foot. The lease al­lowed for a rate re­view every five years. In 2006, the rent was in­creased to $72,000 per month.

By 2021, the rental rate was set at $283,000 per month based on a rate of 65 cents per square foot.

POS­IN­CO claimed it ex­er­cised its right to “re-en­try” un­der the lease af­ter TCDC failed to make any pay­ments over the past three years.

“This re-en­try ex­er­cise was un­der­tak­en as a con­se­quence of breach­es of the terms and con­di­tions of the ex­ist­ing Deed of Lease be­tween POS­IN­CO and TCDC,” it said in a press re­lease last week.

In a re­sponse, how­ev­er, TCDC ac­cused the au­thor­i­ty and its sub­sidiary of “high-hand­ed, il­le­gal and bul­ly­ing” ac­tion.

Stat­ing that it at­tempt­ed to pay $1 mil­lion to­wards the debt last Mon­day, it said, “TCDC has of­fered to set­tle all out­stand­ing rental sums which are not in dis­pute and at­tempt­ed to pay such sums by cheque.

“The cheque was re­turned notwith­stand­ing cur­rent dis­cus­sions to set­tle all mat­ters, in­clud­ing dis­put­ed amounts.”

In its sub­stan­tive law­suit, TCDC is chal­leng­ing the lat­est rental in­crease, which was based on a re­port pre­pared by reg­is­tered val­u­a­tion sur­vey­or GA Far­rell & As­so­ciates.

In an af­fi­davit, at­tached to its claim and ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia, TCDC di­rec­tor Ha­dyn John Gads­by claimed the in­crease was in­valid and un­der chal­lenge.

“The claimant’s po­si­tion is that the rent re­view car­ried out by the Far­rell Re­port is ir­ra­tional­ly high and is there­fore in­valid and void, as it could not have been car­ried out in ac­cor­dance with the or spe­cial as­sump­tion agreed by the par­ties,” Gads­by said.

Stat­ing that the premis­es should have been val­ued on the ba­sis that it was a swamp be­fore be­ing de­vel­oped by TCDC, Gads­by said the com­pa­ny re­ceived a re­port from an­oth­er sur­vey­or, who es­ti­mat­ed the month­ly rental val­ue to be $82,980.17 based on a com­par­i­son with oth­er sim­i­lar prop­er­ties.

“At the time of let­ting, the premis­es were cov­ered in bush, vines, sub­ject to se­vere wa­ter re­ten­tion and the topog­ra­phy var­ied and was sig­nif­i­cant­ly be­low the lev­el of sur­round­ing port lands to the east,” he said.

“The re­port fixed the rent at an un­law­ful­ly high ba­sis which un­just­ly en­rich­es the port,” he added.

He claimed the com­pa­ny had al­ready paid $5,327,970.74 in ad­di­tion­al rent based on the re­port and is re­quest­ing a re­bate if it is suc­cess­ful in its case.

Through the law­suit, TCDC is al­so seek­ing com­pen­sa­tion for a loss of prof­its it sus­tained as a re­sult of POS­IN­CO’s ac­tions.

The sub­stan­tive case is ex­pect­ed to be as­signed to an­oth­er High Court Judge, who will set a date for the next hear­ing.

TCDC was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Ravi Heffes-Doon and An­dre Rud­der.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored