State relieved from sanctions in leave classification lawsuit

A High Court judge has ruled against objections of a former estate constable with the Ministry of Education over the State’s request for relief from sanctions and an extension of time to file an affidavit for part of its defence.

In August 2024, Anthony Noel Hosein filed a lawsuit challenging his leave classification. In December 2024, he objected to the State’s delay in filing its affidavit, arguing it was an abuse of process and should be struck out. However, Justice Frank Seepersad rejected Hosein’s arguments, granted the State’s request, and strongly criticised what he described as “pedantic and unnecessary objections” by Hosein’s legal team in a ruling on February 5.

Seepersad had to determine if an instructing attorney could provide evidence while remaining the attorney on record and if the State should be granted additional time to file an affidavit in response to Hosein’s claim.

On the first issue, Seepersad dismissed Hosein’s objection, stating that the instructing attorney’s affidavit was “formal in nature” and did not breach professional codes of ethics as the former contended.

In determining the second issue, the judge acknowledged that the State had faced delays in obtaining Hosein’s personnel records from the Ministry of Education, which consisted of four volumes. Despite multiple extensions being granted, the State was still unable to complete its affidavit on time due to missing information. He also admitted his previous “unless order,” (for the case to proceed undefended if the affidavits were not filed on time) in retrospect, was “a bit draconian.”

Seepersad agreed that while court deadlines must be respected, the State’s delay was justified given the challenges it faced in getting the information from the ministry.

“The lawyers for the defendant comprehensively outlined the continued challenges which were experienced in their quest to obtain instructions from the MOE,” he noted.

“In an ideal situation, instructions should be forthcoming in short order, but in reality, the extracting of information from government ministries is an effort akin to pulling a needle from a haystack.”

He suggested a complete digitisation of records at government agencies to prevent similar problems faced by attorneys in the case.

The judge also pointed out that the State had acted professionally and persistently, and that the affidavit was eventually filed on December 16, 2024. He found that the two-month delay was not unreasonable, given the circumstances.

In ruling against Hosein’s application, he criticised the claimant’s lawyers, accusing them of wasting the court’s time with frivolous procedural objections.

“Lawyers are strongly urged to be more circumspect, to exercise caution and act with diligence before procedural objections are advanced,” he stated.

He further emphasised that adversarial litigation must not undermine the duty of lawyers to assist the court, warning against “taxing an already overburdened court system” with unnecessary objections.

“On the facts as presented, the claimant has not been subjected to any injustice or prejudice and the claimant’s objection is unfortunate. Adversarial litigation does not obviate lawyers from their obligation to maintain the highest traditions of the bar nor does it circumvent the requirement that the greatest assistance must be afforded to the court.

“An inherent part of the duty imposed upon lawyers is the obligation to respect and value the court’s time and this court depreciates positions of opposition which are pedantic and devoid of common sense.

“Such posturing should be avoided as it taxes an already overburdened court system.”