Insurance consultant gets to appeal judge's order to repay $600k for fall

AN insurance consultant who was ordered to repay a little over half a million dollars which had been paid to her as workmen’s compensation has been given a lifeline by the Court of Appeal to appeal the judge’s order.

On an oral decision on Thursday, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar and Ronnie Boodoosingh allowed Primilla Dial-Seepaul to appeal the October 2021 decision of Justice Margaret Mohammed, who not only ordered her to repay the $633,912 she received as workmen’s compensation for a fall but also dismissed her claim against Guardian Life of the Caribbean.

In her decision, Mohammed held that Dial-Seepaul, having not filed a defence to Guardian Life’s counter-claim, was deemed to have admitted that Guardian Life was not liable for any of her loss, damage or injury.

Her claim against the company for negligence was also struck out since she admitted she was not their employee. It was also argued by Guardian Life that any duty owed to her fell on her employer who occupied the floor of the Guardian Life building in Port of Spain where she slipped.

After her claim was struck out, her attorneys filed several applications challenging the judge’s decision, including an application to extend the time to file an appeal.

This was filed one day late and the rules of court provide that any procedural appeal will be dismissed if no appeal is filed in 21 days unless the court extends the time to do so.

At the hearing of the matter, the question of if Dial-Seepaul should have filed an application for relief from sanctions was considered. However, it was argued by her attorney Eduardo Martinez that she did not have to, but should still be allowed to pursue her appeal although her application to extend the time to do so was late.

In response, Guardian Life’s attorney, Martin Daly, SC, had argued the appeal should be struck out since there was no application for an extension of time, nor was there an application for relief from sanctions.

In their ruling, the judges held there was nothing to preclude them from using the extension of time application as a relief from sanctions application, adding also there appeared to have been some confusion when Dial-Seepaul’s former attorneys sought to file their application so it could not be said she did not act promptly.

Boodoosingh said good reason was given and a reason did not have to be perfect. He also said the prejudice to her was patent since she was ordered to repay the compensation she received so the “interest of justice” weighed heavily in her being able to advance her appeal.

The parties were given 21 days in which to file their submissions and the matter will come up for hearing on April 25, at which time Dial-Seepaul will have an opportunity to advance her arguments against Mohammed’s judgment.