High Court dismisses $93,000 claim against Petrotrin

The High Court has dismissed a $93,037.73 claim brought by a marine construction and equipment company against the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (Petrotrin), ruling that the matter was filed outside the statutory period.

The sum represented money DAYNCO Ltd argued were unlawfully withheld under a retention clause from a 2014 contract for repair works.

Justice Marissa Robertson dismissed DAYNCO’s claim on October 1, and ordered the company to pay Petrotrin’s costs.

The company maintained that the funds were held in trust and that Petrotrin was unjustly enriched by failing to release the money after the six-month retention period ended in 2015.

Petrotrin denied liability, contending that the case was contractual in nature and therefore statute-barred. The company further argued that even if a trust or equitable claim were recognised, it would be defeated by the doctrines of delay and laches which requires a claimant to act with diligence to protect their rights as failure to do so can result in the loss of a remedy.

In her decision, Robertson found no basis to treat the retention sum as trust property, noting the absence of contractual terms requiring it to be held separately.

While the court accepted that unjust enrichment could be argued, it determined the cause of action accrued in December 2015, when payment should have been certified. Since DAYNCO filed proceedings after December 2019, the claim was deemed time-barred under Section 3(1) of the Limitation of Certain Actions Act.

“In a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment the question which arises is whether the cause of action accrued when a defendant was enriched or when the unjust factor arose.”

Robertson noted that after the expiration of six months it was open to DAYNCO to requisition for the payment of the retained sum.

“Although the provisions of Clause 6.3 required the defendant to certify the satisfactory completion of the works prior to payment, the claimant would have been entitled to a certification six months after the completion of works.”

She said since DAYNCO would have been entitled to the certification after the expiration of six-months from the completion of the works, the company’s invoice ought to have been presented within a reasonable time of the expiry of the six-month period.

“The determination of a reasonable time is dependent on the circumstances of the case.

“In this court’s opinion a reasonable period for the claimant to provide an invoice for the sum retained would have been six months after May 5, 2015 or on or about the November 4, 2015.”

She said after presenting the invoice, Petrotrin would have had a period of 30 days to satisfy the invoice.

“If, after the 30-day period elapsed and the defendant had not honoured the invoice for the undisputed sum, the unjust factor would have arisen and the claimant’s cause of action crystallised.

“This court, accordingly, has determined that the cause of action accrued on December 4, 2015 and that time ran for four years from December 4, 2015. The claimant, not having filed these proceedings before December 4, 2019, has filed these proceedings outside of the statutory period. These proceedings are therefore time barred.

“The time bar provides a legal impediment which extinguished the defendant’s liability,” she said in her ruling.

Attorneys Anthony Cherry represented DAYNCO, while Petrotrin was represented by Roger-Mark Kawalsingh and Ashley Roopchansingh.