Vehicle examiner awarded $300k as court slams unfair appeal process

A HIGH COURT JUDGE has ruled that the Trinidad Transport Board’s handling of an appeal by an auto mechanic and vehicle examiner was constitutionally unfair.

In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Westmin James held that the process was tainted by bias, lack of disclosure and the improper involvement of the Transport Commissioner, who revoked James Nancoo’s authorisation as a certified vehicle examiner and the purported termination of his business, A2Z Auto Repairs Centre Ltd, as an approved testing station in 2019.

In his lawsuit, Nancoo challenged the fairness of the appeal process before the Trinidad Transport Board.

In his ruling, James held that the appeal process breached Nancoo’s constitutional rights to the protection of the law and to a fair hearing, awarding him a total of $300,000 in damages, plus interest and costs.

James found that the appeals were constitutionally defective on multiple grounds. Central to the ruling was the participation of the then-Transport Commissioner in the appeal of his own decision.

Although board minutes acknowledged that the commissioner “could not sit on the appeal,” the judge found that he nonetheless participated in discussions, shaped the appeal procedure and supplied information to the board without Nancoo’s knowledge.

“This arrangement created an inherently unequal process,” the judge said, noting that the decision-maker had access to the board while Nancoo was excluded entirely from the appeal proceedings.

The court also faulted the board for failing to provide any reasons for its decision and for excluding Nancoo from meaningful participation. The board’s August 8, 2019, letter merely stated that the appeal was refused after considering the facts “at length,” without explaining how conflicting evidence was resolved.

“This one-sided process violates the most basic principle of natural justice,” the judge said.

He added, “The combination of no reasons and no participation meant the claimant faced a black box decision-making process: he could not know what case he had to meet, could not respond to evidence or arguments against him, could not understand why his appeal failed, and consequently could not effectively challenge the decision.”

James also held that the board decided the appeal on a false factual premise. A letter dated February 14, 2019, later confirmed to be genuine, showed that A2Z’s authorisation as a testing station had in fact been returned and never lawfully revoked. Despite this, the board proceeded as if the authorisation had been terminated and advised Nancoo to reapply after one year.

The judge said the appeal was therefore determined on a materially incorrect basis, depriving Nancoo of the opportunity to earn income from a valid authorisation for nearly three years.

“This procedural unfairness is compounded by the fact that the claimant only discovered critical information about his own appeal, including the minutes showing the Transport Commissioner's participation and the fact that A2Z's authorisation was never actually revoked, through protracted freedom of information requests and subsequent judicial review proceedings, rather than through transparent disclosure during the appeal itself.

“Such opacity and exclusion are antithetical to the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing and protection of the law, rendering the entire appeal process fundamentally flawed and the resulting decision constitutionally invalid.”

The judge also criticised the board’s treatment of evidence, particularly a statutory declaration from a vehicle owner who said that his car was in proper condition when inspected by A2Z, but was later damaged in an accident. The judge found that the declaration, which supported Nancoo’s explanation, was either ignored or selectively treated while reports unfavourable to Nancoo were relied upon without disclosure to him.

While the court rejected Nancoo’s claim that his constitutional right to the enjoyment of property was breached, it found serious violations of his rights under sections 4(b) and 5(2)(e) of the Constitution.

“This case discloses serious and systemic breaches of constitutional standards governing administrative appeals. The participation of the original decision-maker, the selective treatment of evidence, the absence of reasons, and the exclusion of the claimant from the process strike at the heart of the rule of law.

“The court cannot condone the arbitrary and unfair nature of the defendant’s actions in its conduct of appeals involving the Transport Commissioner.

“The claimant suffered an injustice…” he said in his ruling.

Nancoo was awarded $150,000 in nominal and aggravated damages for distress and inconvenience, and a further $150,000 in vindicatory damages with statutory interest at five per cent per annum, along with costs assessed for senior counsel and one junior counsel. Execution of the judgment was stayed for six weeks.

Attorneys for Nancoo included Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Robert Abdool-Mitchell, Natasha Bisram and Vishaal Siewsaran. The Attorney General was represented by Rachel Wright and Natoya Moore Belmar.

Nancoo was recertified as a vehicle examiner in 2022, and A2Z Auto Repairs Centre Ltd is again operating as an approved testing station.