Contractor seeks to block access to info

A CONTRACTOR allegedly suspected of being a party to the cartel behaviour being alleged by the Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd (EMBD) in its $200 million claim against former housing minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, two former executives and a group of contractors, wants permission to appeal an order which led to several local banks disclosing his financial information to the State.

The contractor is also seeking to have the appellate court vary the court’s order and prevent the EMBD from using the information it obtained from the banks. In his procedural appeal, the contractor has named the EMBD, Bank of Baroda, First Citizens Bank, First Citizens Investment Services, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), JMMB and Republic Bank as respondents in his appeal.

The contractor’s attorney Vincent Charles complained to Justices of Appeal Rajendra Narine, Judith Jones and Andre des Vignes of the case, saying they only received redacted copies of documents and the Norwich order granted by the court was an infringement of his clients rights to privacy and confidentiality.

He also pointed out that a gag order had been placed by the judge in the original EMBD claim. A Norwich order is a pre-action discovery mechanism that compels a third party, such as a financial institution, to provide certain information in its possession, such as bank records to prove alleged fraud and recover wrongfully-obtained property.

As part of its cartel claim against Moonilal and the others, it is being alleged that they engaged in bid-rigging and cartel behaviour, support and/or encourage and/or permitted by persons in public office. The claim centres around ten contracts for rehabilitation of roads in Caroni, which were granted to five contractors in the run-up to the September 2015 general elections.

Also named in the EMBD’s cartel lawsuit are former CEO of EMBD Gary Parmassar and the former divisional manager of EMBD Madhoo Balroop, Andrew Walker, Fides Limited (Fides), Namalco Construction Service Limited (Namalco), LCB Contractors Limited, TN Ramnauth and Company Ltd (TN Ramnauth), Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Ltd (Ramhit) and Kall Company Ltd (Kallco).

But according to Charles, there were serious allegations being made in the cartel claim and his client had a right to know what is being alleged against him, since he was not named in the EMBD’s claim against the others. “He is a stranger to the proceedings.”

Charles said that all his client was aware of was that there was a series of large payments made out by EMBD and the close proximity to the state entity’s payments to his client raised suspicion and allegedly tied him to the cartel claim being pursued by the EMBD. In his reply, the EMBD’s lead counsel, David Phillips, QC, questioned the rationale of the appeal, since the banks had already disclosed the information to the EMBD.

“The orders, so far, have been complied with and can not be undone. The material has already been supplied. There is nothing that can be done.”

Phillips said the contractor was not a party to the Norwich application since he was a potential wrongdoer. “The important thing for him is that the judge at first instance did not find on a balance of probabilities that he was involved in wrongdoing.”The judges have reserved their ruling on the appeal.

Comments

"Contractor seeks to block access to info"

More in this section