Contractor fails to convince judge over $36m claim

A contractor seeking payment from the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) for $36 million has been denied a summary judgment by a High Court judge. The company claimed it was owed the money for the design and construction of residential housing units in Greenvale, La Horquetta, and for security for the housing site.

Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Ltd (MRSCL) was engaged by the HDC in 2008 to design and construct 344 residential units in the Greenvale Development, and the two parties agreed to enter into a firm price joint venture contract for $137 million.

In a ruling delivered earlier this month, Justice Jacqueline Wilson held that the payment of $8,301,049.04 under an interim payment certificate for works done was not an issue that could be resolved summarily, and ruled for determination at trial.

On the payment of $28,475,334.00 for security services on the work site, which the HDC alleged was excessive and bore no correlation to the contractual rate at which the contractor previously providedsecurity services, the judge said summary judgment could also not be granted and the application by MRSCL’s application was premature, since it could not be said that the HDC could not successfully defend the claim.

In the alternative to summary judgment, the contractor sought an interim payment of $12,304,608.00, for providing security services for 2010-2014, but Wilson said an area of potential concern related to the sum of $3.7 million which was approved for payment by the HDC.

She said on the evidence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty, that $3,709,920.00 “represents a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment,” as she also dismissed the application for interim payment.

Wilson also extended the time for the HDC to file its defence, saying there would be no prejudice to the claimant.

“Notwithstanding that subsequent to filing the application for an extension the defendant demonstrated a poor culture of compliance with the orders and directions of the court, when all of the relevant factors are taken into account, I am of the opinion that the defendant should be granted an extension of time to file and serve a defence,” she said.