Court clears Conrad Enill in $1.8m deal

A HIGH Court judge has cleared former government minister Conrad Enill in a $1.8 million lawsuit filed against him by Jenny Sharma, owner of the popular restaurant Jenny’s on the Boulevard.

Justice Jacqueline Wilson dismissed Sharma’s claim against Enill, a former ambassador, energy minister and National Gas Company chairman, on February 21.

The judge said Sharma failed to establish Enill was liable for the repayment of the $1.8 million.

John Jeremie, SC, and Alana Rambaran represented Enill while Ravi Rajcoomar, SC, Jacqueline Bowen-Rodriguez and Dwayne Thomas represented Shama.

Sharma sought $1,800,525.44 from Enill, Anthony Sancho, and TAC Investment Group Ltd, a project management, business consultancy and financial planning firm, she claimed owed as sums loaned and advanced by her between June 2019 - September 2019. She claimed the transactions and agreement were for the sale of her home and project management services for the construction of a commercial/ residential building at Lot 15-17 Cipriani Boulevard, Port of Spain.

In May 2020, Sancho accepted liability for $1,006,500.44 for two apartment units at Champs Elysees Maraval, registration of TAC Global Holding Ltd, registration of an Audi Q5 and food, drink and services from Jenny’s on the Boulevard.

In his defence, Enill denied any involvement in TAC Investment Group Ltd or was a consultant making representations to, or entering into agreements with, Sharma. He said he only offered his views to Sancho on a project but received no payment for the advice. He also denied borrowing any money from Sharma and did not provide consultancy services. He said he was told by Sancho the AudiQ5 and apartments were for use by TAC’s chairman and CEO.

In her witness statement, Sharma said she was selling her St Clair home and was told a representative of TAC Investment Group expressed interest in the sale. She claimed Sancho, Enill and a representative of the firm visited her home and they discussed the sale of the property and her plans to develop the commercial and residential building on Cipriani Boulevard. She said negotiations were partly verbal and in writing and she made payments in cash to Enill and Sancho for pre-construction and development works. She also claimed Enill sought a loan so he and Sancho could relocate to Port of Spain and she advanced $343,000 for a six-month deposit for the two posh Chateaux de Chantilly units and a loan of $612,000.00 for the AudiQ5.

In his witness statement, Enill said Sancho asked his views about the St Clair property but did not indicate he was affiliated with TAC. He also denied receiving or borrowing money from Sharma nor did he rack up a tab at her restaurant.

In deciding the case, Wilson said Sharma’s evidence that Enill was intended to provide services was “tenuous in the extreme.

“The general reference to project management services for a project that has not been identified with any degree of specificity falls far short of the evidential threshold that the claimant must satisfy in order to succeed on the claimant.

“Mr Enill’s acceptance that he had held discussions with Ms Sharma concerning a project for the construction of a building for commercial and residential purposes on which the claimant proposed to embark does not, without

more, give rise to the binding obligations that the claimant now seeks to enforce.

“The claimant has failed to establish that Mr Enill has been paid for professional advice or services or that he has failed to deliver or that he is liable for the reimbursement of the sums that were paid by Ms Sharma to the first defendant.

“On the whole, the evidence adduced by the claimant to support the claim against the second defendant was tenuous and unconvincing and suggestive of a dishonest attempt to extract payments that were made to, or on behalf of, the first and third defendants.”

Wilson said she accepted Enill’s evidence that he did not receive cash payments for TAC; the receipts provided by Sharma were made out to Sancho for the firm; he did not receive payment for the Audi nor did he drive, use or benefit from it and he did not live in either of the Chateau de Chantilly units nor did he benefit from the lease arrangements.

“It has not been established that the second defendant borrowed sums from the claimant,” the judge concluded.