EMBD to pay costs to Junior Sammy Contractors

THE ESTATE Management and Business Development Company (EMBD) has been ordered to pay to Junior Sammy Contractors Ltd (JSCL) approximately $.4 million representing costs payable on an application to stay a $82 million judgment against it.

In March, Justice Mira Dean-Armorer granted JSCL’s application for summary judgment and ordered the EMBD to pay $82 million for work done on the Caroni Savannah residential development project in 2015.

The EMBD filed an appeal to the Privy Council but also asked for a stay of execution on the money judgment. In July, Justice of Appeal Vasheist Kokaram granted a conditional stay and ordered that JSCL be paid 70 per cent of its costs on the stay application.

The contractor’s total costs claimed was $1,050,395.50 but Kokaram, earlier this month, approved an assessment of $579,131.44, so the EMBD will have to pay 70 per cent of that which works out to $405,392.00.

Kokaram said the $1 million sum claimed in a procedural application for a stay of execution seemed exorbitant. “It is not the substantive appeal and some degree of proportionality must be taken with respect to the allocation of resources at this stage,” he said.

He added that while the principles on those types of applications were neither novel nor complex, in the particular case the issues of law raised were not simple matters and required an in-depth consideration of contractual documents and the relevant law. “It is acknowledged that the stakes for both parties were high having regard to the large sums of money involved,” he said.

In the claim, JSCL said it was successful in its tender for the project and a written contract was executed on February 4, 2015, and completed its work. Of the 13 interim payment certificates (IPCs) certified by the project’s engineer, only six were paid. The contractor filed the lawsuit to recover the $82,804,219.19 certified in the seven remaining IPCs.

In its lawsuit, JSCL also alleged that EMBD admitted to owing $ 77,658,948.91. In opposition to the claim, the EMBD filed three defences alleging that JSCL assigned all their receivables under the contract to ANSA Merchant Bank and it was only the third party that had the right to institute proceedings. It also argued that the IPCs did not finally determine JSCL’s entitlement to payment, and if they were not correct, they could be re-opened. The EMBD also asked for specific disclosure of documents since it had not been able to conclude its analysis of the IPCs since it had reason to believe that the works were over-certified.

Junior Sammy was represented by attorneys Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Jagdeo Singh, Kiel Taklalsingh, Karina Singh and Shanice Harewood while the EMBD was represented by Jonathan Acton Davis, QC, Colin Kangaloo and Danielle Inglewood.