Emile Elias to pay Imbert over $46 million

LOCAL contractor Emile Elias has been ordered to pay to Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s former construction company over $46 million being held in a Unit Trust Corporation account.

In a complete reversal of a 2011 court order against Imbert’s National Stadium (Grenada) Corporation (NS), in which a high court judge ruled in favour of Elias’ NH International (NHIC), three appellate court judges - Justices Peter Jamadar, Nolan Bereaux and Charmaine Pemberton - brought an end to a 19-year legal battle over payment for work done on the Grenada National Stadium project back in 1997.

Pemberton, who delivered the 40-page ruling, said the matter has had a “long, winding and checkered history” through the courts in Grenada, Carriacou, Petit Martinque and TT.

The lawsuit between Elias and Imbert has been waged in local, regional and international courts, after Elias accused Imbert of reneging on a contractual agreement and refusing to pay millions owed. The lawsuit sought payment of a debt of $17 million which was estimated to be worth close to $55 million when interest was added.

Elias’ lawsuit was against Imbert’s construction firm ICS (Grenada) Limited, Clico Investment Bank (CIB) and (NS), the latter being a company Imbert was said to have formed to hold the lease on the stadium.

The money is being held in a Unit Trust Corporation account, and according to the appellate court’s order, NH is to repay to NS the money which was paid out to it by a previous court order in 2017. Elias' company received $44 million as part of the court order in November, last year.

Elias’ company has also been ordered to account for the money it received in accordance with the 2017 court order, and the payment of the money is to be made within 42 days.

According to the ruling, there was no trust created for the benefit of ICS which would have granted rights to them capable of being assigned to NH.

Pemberton said ICS acquired no rights under the facility agreement which were assigned to NH. Central to the appeal was an analysis of the correct understanding of the complex transaction and the interpretation of the facility agreement between the construction firms.

Pemberton said, the rights to the money under the facility agreement resided with NS, adding that ICS could not assign any to another party.

“It would therefore be that NS, the other entity named in the facility agreement and the entity charged with administering the obligations to finance the project, will be entitled to any remaining fund since they were incorporated by ICS, as the arm and responsible authority for providing financing of the project.”

Pemberton said there were no other possible beneficiaries to the funds generated under the facility agreement, and since CIB made no claim to the funds, the only other party to the agreement was NS.

“NH is not contemplated as a beneficiary to these funds. If NH was to benefit from the funds generated under the facility agreement, that needed to have been stated clearly in the facility agreement,” she said.

Elias’ company was also ordered to pay NS’s legal costs.

Imbert's company was represented Simon Hughes QC, and Annabelle Sooklal while Alvin Fitzpartrick,SC, Lesley Ann Lucky-Samaroo, Shiv Sharma and Adrian Byrne represented Elias.