Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
An insurance broking firm and its former long-standing managing director have been given a day to agree on the retirement package he is entitled to.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad gave the deadline yesterday, as he presided over the trial of Omar Daniel’s case against M&M Insurance Broking Services Limited at the Waterfront Judicial Centre in Port-of-Spain.
After listening to the evidence of Daniel, M&M’s former executive chairman and owner, Steve Castagne, and Castagne’s daughter, Isabel Castagne-Hay, who took over for her father after he stepped down, Justice Seepersad noted that most of the aspects of Daniel’s claims over his entitlements had been admitted by the company.
He gave the parties the time to decide on the remaining aspects.
Justice Seepersad said, “I urge you to speak with each other overnight to see if you can resolve those issues. If not, I will solve them for you.”
“I am strongly urging the parties that these issues can be amicably resolved to bring finality to this matter so that everyone can move on with their lives,” he added.
According to the evidence, Daniel worked with the company for approximately 40 years before he parted ways in 2021.
He claimed that in 2013, a year before he was due to turn 60, Castagne sent him an email in which he proposed his retirement benefits.
He claimed that he was promised a $1 million continuity bonus, which would be paid in two equal tranches—one when he turned 60 and the other five years later when he reached the retirement age for executives.
He also claimed that he was entitled to accruing commission for an overseas plan that he administered at Castagne’s request.
Although he admitted that he received a significant portfolio of shares from Daniel, he claimed that it was a gift and not a part payment towards his retirement package.
He also claimed that Castagne promised him a townhouse in a residential complex in Maraval, which he (Castagne) was developing at the time.
He also contended that he was entitled to a monthly pension for ten years after his retirement.
While being cross-examined by the company’s lawyer, Gregory Pantin, Daniel admitted that the promises that were contained in an email were not legally formalised.
He also claimed not to have seen a memorandum issued by the company in 2004 in which its pension arrangements at the time were discussed, and the retirement age for executives was set at 65 years old.
He claimed that he initially believed that he would retire at 60 alongside non-executive staff.
While being interrogated by Daniel’s lawyer, Kiel Taklalsingh, Castagne did not deny giving Daniel the assurances.
While he claimed that he felt that Daniel was entitled to the benefits, he contended that the company’s board and his daughter subsequently challenged him and did not approve such.
“I think she (Castagne-Hay) defies me in every single thing,” Castagne said.
He also admitted that Daniel was entitled to a lump sum payment based on the $2,500 a month that was deducted from his salary from 2000.
He claimed that the deductions were to bolster the ex gratia stipend that was paid to retired employees, as the company did not have a formalised pension plan.
He said that the stipend was calculated as a percentage of the employee’s salary before retirement, with the exact percentage being based on a rate of one per cent for each year the employee served in the company, with a minimum term of ten years.
He also admitted that Daniel was entitled to the commission for the overseas plan.
“I agreed it should be paid, but it is not my decision; it’s Isabel, so deal with her when she comes on the stand,” he said.
He also claimed that the shares, which were valued at $700,000 at the time of purchase, were meant to compensate Daniel for half of the continuous bonus.
“I think it was a good thing to get him some shares and get him into investing,” he said.
He also claimed that the promise of the townhouse in the development, which is still yet to be completed, was a personal arrangement between him and Daniel and not connected with the company.
In her evidence, Castagne-Hay admitted that she consulted with her father but claimed that she was not bound to comply, as he no longer played an active role.
“When he says I defy him, he means that I don’t take what he says as a direction,” she said.
The parties are expected to indicate if they have come to an agreement when the case comes up for hearing before Justice Seepersad this morning.
