Consultancy firm to appeal ruling in fees, tenancy dispute

A consultancy firm intends to appeal a High Court ruling dismissing its lawsuit against an attorney, his practice and a related property management firm.

In a ruling on May 13, Justice Joan Charles dismissed the lawsuit brought by Aaron Knights Enterprises Ltd (AKEL), which claimed over $84,000 in outstanding consultancy fees, rent compensation, and damages stemming from a tenancy and service agreement dispute with Hove’s Court Ltd, Hove and Associates and its principals, attorneys Farai Hove Masaisai and Trishauna Scarlett Hove-Masaisai.

Justice Joan Charles found that the consultancy firm failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims for unpaid fees in 2018 and 2021, breach of contract for November and December 2021, and consequential losses allegedly resulting from an agreement to continue services into 2022.

AKEL, through its director, Aaron Knights, alleged it had an oral agreement with the defendants to continue consultancy services and rent a single office space at 15 Gordon Street, Port of Spain, on a retainer basis. The company claimed it was locked out of the premises on November 1, 2021, without proper notice, breaching both tenancy and consultancy arrangements.

Masaisai and his wife, directors of Hove’s Court and partners of Hove and Associates, denied that any enforceable agreement existed beyond the expiration of written contracts in November 2020.

Justice Charles ruled that the evidence did not support the existence of a binding consultancy agreement for 2022, and that the tenancy was lawfully terminated through a valid notice. She found no proof of invoices or documentation for the alleged unpaid services, nor credible evidence that the parties had agreed to continue any formal business relationship into 2022.

“In the circumstances, I hold that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proving these claims,” the judge ruled.

In a statement, Knights, on behalf of AKEL, said the evidence did not support the court’s findings.

The statement said after reviewing the judgment, the firm intends to file an appeal within 42 days in keeping with the civil proceedings rules.