Court denies THA’s bid to overturn $18m judgment

THE High Court has rejected an application by the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) to set aside a default judgment ordering it to pay $18,299,468 to a construction company for breach of contract.

Justice R Rahim, in a ruling on the THA’s application filed on June 11, 2024, found that the assembly failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim.

He also ruled that the THA did not act as soon as reasonably practicable after learning of the judgment, describing its handling of the case as "careless" and "reckless."

Nazvic Contractors Ltd sued the THA in December 2023, alleging non-payment for construction work completed under multiple contracts.

Despite receiving completion and payment certificates, no payments were made. The THA did not file an appearance or defence, leading to a default judgment in February 2024.

The THA argued that the lawsuit documents, received in December 2023, were misdirected due to office relocations. The matter only came to its attention in April 2024 when Nazvic’s attorneys sent a letter notifying it of the default judgment. Further delays occurred as THA officials struggled to obtain instructions and hold meetings, resulting in their application being filed nearly two months later.

Justice Rahim dismissed the THA’s defences as “fanciful and speculative.”

He noted that while the THA claimed a forensic audit and a quantity surveyor’s valuation was needed, it failed to provide any concrete evidence disputing the work done by Nazvic. He also highlighted that the THA had already made a partial payment of $2.28 million in April 2024, undermining its argument that the contracts were invalid.

“It is one thing to allege that the claimant has not done the work or has not done the work as agreed and quite another to say that we do not know whether the claimant has done the work. The former is a defence but the latter is not.

“In this case there is an admission of the sums owing, there is a suspicion (at the highest) that not all the work may not have been done but this suspicion does not on the evidence appear to carry any reasonable basis.”

Rahim added, “The defendant says we have located some of the projects, but we are unsure as to what works were done because we were not in office and we did not enter into the contracts.

“This does not in law amount to a defence.”

He further criticised the THA’s slow response, stating it displayed a “fundamental lack of appreciation” of the seriousness of the judgment.

“The court was quite frankly taken aback by the absolute carelessness in the handling of the documents served on the THA and the apparent fundamental lack of appreciation that important court documents in a case against the THA had been served which should the claimant be successful on, would have caused the THA to pay out many millions of dollars in public funds.

“This was astonishing but perhaps not as astonishing as the consecutive excuses provided in the sworn evidence…”

Rahim also found no justification for its failure to act promptly after learning of the court order.

“The court wishes to make it clear that it is not of the view that this was administrative inadvertence but that this was a matter of either purposeful (albeit perhaps misguided) or reckless failure to act as soon as it was reasonably practicable so to do.

“In this case, it was reasonably practicable to make the application within a reasonable period after notification by the claimant of the judgment as the legal department of the Chief Secretary had been made aware of the judgment on the said day of the notification.

“Certainly, almost two months thereafter…is woefully unsatisfactory.”

With the application denied, the THA must now pay the full judgment sum and cover Nazvic’s legal costs.

Tamara Toolsie and Savitri Sookraj-Beharry represent Nazvic while Avionne Thomas appeared for the THA.