Udecott loses major portions of case against Calder Hart, ex-executives

THE SPECIAL-purpose state agency Udecott (the Urban Development Corporation of TT) will be unable to recover a substantial portion of its multi-million-dollar claim against a former chairman and three of the state company’s former directors.

Except for reinstating four paragraphs of its twice-amended statement of case, Udecott lost its appeal against several of a judge's orders to strike out portions of its case.

Udecott's claim supporting its non-compliance with orders for specific disclosures was dismissed.

In May 2012, Udecott filed a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against Hart, Krishna Bahadoorsingh, Ricardo O’Brien and Neelanda Rampaul.

The former executives filed applications seeking the disclosure of certain documents, which arose from the allegations in Udecott’s case of negligence in the management of the construction of the Brian Lara Cricket Academy (BCLA).

Udecott was ordered to make disclosures by December 2014, but it appealed. That appeal was heard in February 2014, and the list of documents the company had to provide was increased.

The former executives then applied to have Udecott’s case against them struck out entirely or parts of it.

Then-judge Justice Andre des Vignes did not strike out the entire case, but certain paragraphs, and gave his reasons for doing so, except for the four that were reinstated by the Court of Appeal.

In his reasons, des Vignes held that Udecott’s failure to disclose the information deprived the former executives of an opportunity to support their cases, and it would be unfair or prejudicial to let the company make allegations without the related document.

Udecott’s procedural appeal was filed in 201. Five years later it was heard by Justices of Appeal Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, Mira Dean-Armorer and Malcolm Holdip.

Dean-Armorer, who delivered the court’s ruling, said it was unclear what caused the five-year delay.

Now that Udecott has substantially lost its appeal, the matter returns to the now-docketed judge Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson. The next scheduled hearing is January 16.

Newsday was told unless Udecott appeals to the Privy Council, the matter will move forward before Lambert-Peterson with the latest version of the case, minus the paragraphs which have been struck out, and the former executives will be given an opportunity to amend their various defences, since they were unable to do so pending the resolution of the appeal.

In the ruling, Dean-Armorer said the proceedings span more than ten years and the alleged facts occurred almost 17 years ago.

Udecott was faulted for failingto appeal against the non-compliance ruling of the judge or to object to it.

“The appellant did not even whisper an objection. The judge was allowed to proceed to finalising the compliance ruling on the premise that his findings were without challenge.

“Accordingly, if there was an objection, the appellant slept on its rights. The findings of the compliance hearing have been heard and determined. Any attempt to re-open the question of compliance must be treated as an abuse of the court’s process,” the Appeal Court ruled.

The judges dealt with each of the paragraphs struck out by the judge and Udecott’s complaints in the 92-page decision, giving their findings on each. There were 21 grounds of complaint.

Dean-Armorer said although it was a procedural appeal, it was heard by a panel of three judges because “of its magnitude.” Procedural appeals are usually heard by a panel of two judges.

The whittling down of Udecott’s case may affect its chances of successfully proving alleged negligence against the former executives.

Udecott is seeking to recover almost $65 million for its alleged breach of fiduciary duties in relation to the BLCA, which, at the time the claim was filed, remained incomplete.

Since it was filed in May 2012, the lawsuit has been hit with several delays, caused by the two amendments to the initial claim, as well as several procedural applications for both parties.

In 2019, another judge, Justice David Harris, struck out Udecott’s claim against Hart and the others because Udecott, at the time, did not apply for a case management hearing to be fixed. This was eventually overturned when Udecott challenged it, and the case was reinstated.

Udecott was represented by attorneys Douglas Mendes,SC, Dharmendra Punwasee, Daryll Allahar and Jerome Rajcoomar.

Dr Lloyd Barnett and Annabelle Sooklal represented Hart.

Bahadoorsingh was represented by Stephen Singh. Anthony Bullock and Imran Ali represented O’Brien and Rampaul.

Saga of the Brian Lara Cricket Academy

Conceived in 1999, the stadium was expected to be completed at the cost of $500 million.

A combination of multiple delays, cost overruns and increases in the price of building materials led to the final cost skyrocketing to almost twice its original estimate.

The money Udecott is seeking to recover, $65,680,978.88, represents the balance of advance payments made to the contractor for the project.