N Touch

Tag: Justice Frank Seepersad

Son’s claim to fishing vessel dismissed in bitter family dispute

A bitter family dispute over the ownership and sale of a fishing vessel has ended with the High Court dismissing a son’s claim against his mother.

On January 26, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed Robert Auerbach Jr’s claim to ownership of the vessel Dilligaf, ruling that he failed to prove any legal or beneficial entitlement to the boat.

In delivering his decision, the judge found that the claimant’s case rested largely on allegations rather than documentary proof, and that the evidence supported the defence’s position that the vessel belonged to his deceased father’s company and, after his death, to his widow, Margaret Auerbach.

Robert alleged that his father intended the vessel to be his and claimed that his mother attempted to sell all the assets connected to the boat and retain the proceeds. He further alleged that she sought to dispose of other family assets despite never having worked, and that he had been prevented from accessing the family property.

He told the court that fisheries registration documents proved his ownership of the vessel and relied on conversations with his father dating back to 2008, which he said showed an intention to acquire the boat for him, partly in satisfaction of work allegedly done for a company known as Morisco Services Ltd.

Robert also claimed that his mother took personal documents belonging to him, including his passport, insurance clearance and the vessel’s registration papers, and that the entire file of documents relating to the boat had gone missing. While he acknowledged that he had not yet taken legal action in relation to those allegations, he said he intended to do so but was being prevented from entering the property.

Margaret Auerbach, however, firmly denied her son’s claims and maintained that she was the lawful owner of the vessel.

She said ownership flowed from her late husband’s will, her role as executor of his estate, and her position as a director of Dilligaf Inc. She explained that she and her husband were directors of the company, which owned the vessel, although no shares were ever issued to either of them.

She testified that as the surviving director, ownership and control of the vessel vested in her, and noted that as she was still alive, the estate had not yet devolved to her children.

The court was shown two inventories submitted during the probate process, neither of which listed shares in Dilligaf Inc. or the vessel itself as estate assets. In emotional testimony, Margaret spoke about the period following her husband’s death.

She said her son had little involvement in the purchase of the vessel, which was acquired on December 1, 2009.

“Do you know what it is to be a widow?” she asked under cross-examination by her son’s attorney, Stephen Singh. “My husband had just died.”

She told the court that she eventually decided to dispose of the boat as it had become a source of distress and conflict. She alleged that her son had been abusive and described the vessel as “a thorn in her side.”

Margaret said the boat was sold to her daughter’s partner and insisted that she had never gifted it to her son, but merely lent it to him. She also claimed the vessel was damaged while in his possession and maintained that her husband never intended to leave it to their son.

In his ruling, Justice Seepersad found no credible evidence that the deceased intended to gift the vessel to his son, nor any documentary proof supporting Robert’s claim of ownership.

The court accepted Margaret Auerbach’s evidence that the vessel belonged to Dilligaf Inc. and that she, as director and executor, was entitled to deal with it. The judge found that the claimant’s evidence fell well short of the required standard.

He noted that while the claimant bore the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, his narrative relied heavily on his relationship with his deceased father and was unsupported by documents.

“Notably, the claimant provided absolutely no documentary evidence in support of any contention or explanation as to what involvement, if any, he had with Morisco Services Ltd, what work was done, or the value of that work,” the judge said.

Justice Seepersad expressed scepticism about the claimant’s account, observing that at the material time he was a student and it was “highly unlikely” he had the financial means or time to generate work of such value that a US$163,000 vessel would be treated as part payment.

The court found that documentary evidence showed the vessel was purchased in December 2009 using funds from accounts controlled by Robert George Auerbach and his wife.

Examining the company’s incorporation documents, the judge noted that while the deceased and his wife were appointed directors, no shares were ever issued, and the claimant was neither a shareholder nor a director.

On a balance of probabilities, the judge said that if the deceased intended to gift the vessel to his son, one would have expected the claimant to have been given an interest or authority within the company. Instead, control of the company and its assets remained exclusively with the deceased and his wife.

“Notably, the claimant provided absolutely no documentary evidence in support of any contention or explanation as to what involvement, if any, he had with Morisco Services Ltd, what work was done, or the value of that work,” the judge said.

“The documentary evidence suggests that the vessel, when acquired, was acquired not in the name of the claimant, but in the name of a company, and the authority in that company was not given to the claimant, but was retained by the deceased and his wife.

“If the claimant’s evidence is accurate, and his relationship with his mother is almost non-existent since he was about 18 years old, then, on a balance of probabilities, it is highly unlikely that his father, with whom he suggests he had a close relationship and bond, having promised him this vessel, would then place the vessels in the hand of an incorporated company, where the claimant’s nemesis, his mother, would be one of the two directors and persons who are authorised to issue the shares in the said corporation.

“So the mere fact that the company was set up in the manner in which it was suggests that there was no clear and manifest intent by the deceased to gift this vessel to the claimant.

“Now, the evidence also suggests that subsequent to the death of the deceased, there was a further breakdown in the relationship between this mother and son that has resulted in a multiplicity of legal and criminal matters, some of which or one of which also involved the institution of injunctive proceedings where the defendant had to obtain orders from the court for the defendant, the claimant to stay away from her.”

Justice Seepersad also considered evidence of the strained relationship between mother and son, including injunctive relief obtained by the defendant to keep her son away from her. He said this undermined the claimant’s assertion that his father would have placed the vessel in a company where his estranged wife had equal control if the intention was to gift the boat to the claimant.

Quoting Shakespeare’s King Lear, the judge remarked on the pain of familial betrayal, noting: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.”

Having seen and heard both witnesses, Justice Seepersad found that Margaret Auberach was “a far more credible and reliable witness” and that she engendered in the court “the feeling that she was a witness of truth.”

“In fact, she engendered in the court the feeling that she was a witness of truth. In the circumstances, therefore, it was understandable shortly after the death of her husband,

the trauma that is associated with untimely death and then a deterioration in familial relationships, which evidently was occurring in 2014, because it subsequently resulted in the filing of proceedings where an injunctive order was obtained

While accepting that Robert and his father may have shared a close relationship and that he accompanied his father on a voyage from St Lucia after the vessel was acquired, the judge said this did not amount to proof of ownership.

“Whether the claimant sailed back with the vessel in December 2009 or early 2010,

clearly the claimant and his father had a good relationship, and the fact that he would have accompanied his father on the sail from St Lucia does not mean that it was intended that the vessel was his.

“For all the reasons outlined, if it was the intent to gift the vessel, the documentary evidence would have reflected that intention,” Justice Seepersad said.

The court found that Robert had failed to discharge the burden of proof and also noted that any claim may properly have been brought against the company in whose name the vessel was vested, but that company was not a party to the proceedings.

The claim was dismissed, and Robert was ordered to pay his mother’s costs on the prescribed basis.

Margaret Auerbach was represented by Om Lalla.

New Grant man jailed for disobeying court order for damages

A New Grant man has been committed to three days in prison for willfully disobeying a court order to pay damages arising from a 2012 assault and battery claim, despite having the means to do so. Justice Frank Seepersad made the order against Groodial Badal on January 15.

While maintaining that contempt orders must never be used oppressively to punish poverty, he acknowledged that they were justified where a party deliberately refuses to comply with a lawful order. He ruled that Badal’s conduct amounted to willful disobedience and committed him to three days’ simple imprisonment, refusing an application for a stay.

“The dispensation of justice at times necessitates an empathetic approach to the application of the rule of law,” Seepersad said. “However, where there has been willful disobedience and/or an unjustified refusal to obey the terms of a court order despite having the means to do so, the court must protect and preserve its authority and dispassionately apply the full force of the law.”

Addressing Badal directly, the judge said, “You are in contempt for your failure to make any payment. This does not absolve you of payment of the balance owed. I hope it gives you time to reflect. Your obligations will be met as soon as you are released from custody.”

The court found that evidence showed Badal had multiple streams of income and failed to provide any proof that he was unable to pay any portion of the judgment debt. Seepersad described Badal’s conduct as “nonchalance” and “pervicacious disobedience.”

“Compliance with court orders is not optional. It is mandatory. It is regrettable that in this society disregard for the law appears to be entrenched, and far too often, citizens only comply with legal obligations under the threat of severe sanction.

“Sadly, the ‘big stick over your head syndrome’ seems to be engraved and entrenched into the social fabric, and only its presence and use catalyses compliance,” the judge said.

In sending a warning, he added, “One’s deliberate unlawful actions does attract consequences and persons must be held to account when they are guilty of wrongdoing or volitionally defy orders of the court.”

Balkaran, also of New Grant, sought the committal order after Badal failed to comply with a consent order dated April 20, 2016. The original claim, filed in June 2012, arose out of an assault and battery matter. Judgment in default was entered in April 2014 after Badal failed to file an appearance or defence, though it was later set aside and the defence filed. The matter was ultimately compromised by consent.

Under the consent order, Badal agreed to pay $70,000, inclusive of interest and costs, with a lump-sum payment due in May 2016 and the remaining balance to be paid in monthly installments of $1,500 starting June 30, 2016. Court records showed that since June 2016, Badal paid $22,000 by January 2020 and a further $1,500 in May 2024.

Statutory interest at five percent continued to accrue and that, as of February 17, 2025, the total sum due and owing stood at $68,523.10. Balkaran’s application said Badal owned his home in New Grant and operated a roti shop and a burger cart, demonstrating an ability to pay while refusing to do so.

Seepersad noted that the matter had been before the court for a significant period and that every opportunity had been afforded to Badal to satisfy his obligations, even in part.

The imprisonment order takes immediate effect, though the outstanding debt remains payable in full. Attorney Ravi Bunsee represented Balkaran while Mustapha Khan represented Badal, who said he paid a $15,000 lump sum and was able to pay $7,000 by January 32, 2019. He said he was always willing to pay the $1,500, even asking for banking information, but Balkaran refused. He said his financial situation worsened after the pandemic and his monthly expenses are more than his income. He also claimed he remained unemployed since covid19 and started receiving NIS payments in 2021. His defence maintained that Balkaran had not established that he had the means to pay the judgment but that he was willing to continue paying monthly installments of $1,000 to satisfy the debt.

High Court ruling adds to EFCL's debt woes

Already debt-ridden Education Facilities Company Ltd (EFCL) has added yet another creditor to its growing list, after the High Court ruled in favour of a Mt Hope-based construction firm.

Saran Sampath Ltd obtained judgment against EFCL in the sum of $327,619.88 following a brief trial before Justice Frank Seepersad on January 8.

EFCL is already facing multiple claims from contractors, with judgments taking priority.

In its claim, Sampath contended that by a letter of contract dated August 2, 2011, EFCL accepted its tender to carry out remedial works at the Malabar Government Primary School for the sum of $5,948,230. The letter of contract was formally signed on September 11, 2011.

Under the agreement, the work was to be completed within a period of 20 days. Sampath said it complied with the contractual terms and began mobilising resources, procuring materials, and assigning personnel and equipment. It also maintained dedicated standby resources in preparation for the commencement of the contract.

However, by letter dated April 26, 2013, EFCL terminated the agreement, stating that it had decided to proceed with an open invitation for the services and apologised for the change in the tender process. Sampath contended that this amounted to a breach of contract which caused it to suffer loss and damage.

On September 25, 2013, Sampath submitted a claim for loss of profits and standby resources. EFCL responded on October 22, 2014, offering $327,619.88 in full and final settlement of the claim.

That offer was accepted by Sampath on November 18, 2014. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that the sum would be paid within one year of acceptance, by November 17, 2015.

Sampath’s claim alleged that, in breach of the settlement agreement, EFCL wrote on August 18, 2015, stating that the claim was once again “under review” and that it would revert shortly thereafter. No payment was made.

Sampath said it made several attempts to resolve the matter up to May 11, 2017.

In July 2019, Sampath’s attorneys again wrote to EFCL. In response, EFCL’s chief executive officer acknowledged receipt of the claim and indicated that the company would respond within 21 days after completing internal investigations to arrive at an amicable solution. According to Sampath, the 21-day period expired without any response.

Sampath ultimately claimed $327,619.88 for breach of contract, representing the agreed loss of profits and standby resources.

In its defence, EFCL denied each and every allegation. It admitted that Sampath had been awarded a contract dated August 2, 2011, for remedial works at the Malabar Government Primary School but said the agreement was governed by the FIDIC short-form contract conditions.

EFCL contended that it never issued instructions for Sampath to take possession of the site or to commence mobilisation, and said it had no record of communicating such directions.

It further alleged that Sampath never submitted a programme or schedule of activities, a method statement, insurance coverage, policies, or a mobilisation plan, and that it had no record of receiving any such documents.

EFCL also argued that the claim was statute-barred, having been commenced in 2019, well after the four-year limitation period for bringing such claims.

While EFCL admitted that the agreement was terminated and that Sampath submitted a claim, it said it had no record of any agreement to pay the settlement sum within one year from October 2014 and applied for the claim to be struck out. It also admitted receiving Sampath’s letter in July 2019.

In reply, Sampath maintained that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable and could not be struck out. Sampath was represented by Lesley-Ann Lucky-Samaroo and Sasha Nath. Amrita Ramsook appeared for EFCL.

The judgment comes against the backdrop of EFCL’s ongoing financial turmoil.

In July 2023, High Court judge Justice Carol Gobin dismissed a petition by EFCL’s board seeking to wind up the company. The petition was objected to by dozens of contractors who said they were owed millions of dollars for unpaid work.

In a strongly worded ruling, Gobin rejected the winding-up application and issued harsh criticism of the State’s handling of EFCL.

“I have found that the government deliberately starved EFCL of funding—guaranteeing its demise—even as its corporate purpose could not have been said to be spent or frustrated,” she said.

“This was a chokehold followed by a winding-up petition, the purpose of which was to have the court certify the death. It hardly requires further proof.”

EFCL had asked to be wound up in April 2022, claiming insolvency. The judge rejected that assertion.

In its petition, EFCL said it had no income, had ceased carrying on project management services, was insolvent, and could not meet its debts. It claimed its liabilities to contractors totalled $889,561,246.

At the time the petition was filed, EFCL’s debts were stated at $46,737,205.09, in addition to more than $800 million owed to contractors. The company also disclosed that it had 79 unsatisfied judgments or awards dating back to December 2016, totalling $321,376,009.75 as of February 25.

It further said that approximately $112 million ordered to be paid to contractors was not reflected in invoices in its possession, and that it was defending 30 active claims totalling $119 million.

Justice Gobin acknowledged that EFCL was unable to pay its debts but agreed with the objectors that allowing the winding up would be an abuse of process and would deprive creditors of their property.

She described EFCL as fundamentally different from an ordinary private company.

“A company which is wholly owned by the corporation sole is unlike the ordinary private commercial company,” she said, noting that the shareholder is constitutionally accountable to Parliament and the public.

Allowing the winding up in the absence of accountability, she ruled, was “impermissible.”

She found no evidence that EFCL’s directors had recommended winding up the company, concluding instead that the decision was made solely by the shareholder, which is the Minister of Finance as corporation sole,

Justice Gobin also found that EFCL’s insolvency was directly caused by the Government’s deliberate withdrawal of funding and the halting of projects.

“The buck stops with the corporation sole,” she said, rejecting attempts to lay blame exclusively at the feet of the company.

She criticised what she described as “gross recklessness” in the handling of litigation against EFCL, noting that default judgments were allowed to accumulate with interest “with a seeming disregard for the effects on the public purse.”

One of the most troubling aspects of the petition, she said, was the transfer of EFCL’s functions to another state entity, MTS, under the direct management of the Ministry of Finance.

“EFCL is unable to carry out the objects for which it is established only because of the execution of a deliberate plan to redirect project management services through another company,” she said.

She warned that state companies could not be treated as pawns to be arbitrarily shut down while their creditors were left unpaid.

Justice Gobin concluded that the corporate veil had effectively been “voluntarily removed” by the Government itself, exposing it to potential liability for EFCL’s debts. She said EFCL should be “assimilated” into the Government, which may ultimately be responsible for satisfying those claims.

EFCL was established in 2005 under the Patrick Manning-led Government as a special-purpose company tasked with managing the construction, refurbishment, and repair of public schools on behalf of the Ministry of Education.

Judge approves pension lawsuit against Sando City Corporation by retired assessor

A HIGH COURT judge has given the green light to a retired city assessor to challenge the San Fernando City Corporation’s failure to calculate her pension and gratuity owed to her.

Heidi Henry sued the San Fernando City Corporation for failing to calculate her pension and gratuity based on her correct salary following a 2020 decision of the High Court, which held she was entitled to be treated equally to her comparator at the Port of Spain City Corporation and receive pension and gratuity at salary range 59D.

She was granted leave by Justice Frank Seepersad to pursue her claim against the corporation, which includes an order compelling the local government body to recalculate and pay her her correct salary and pension.

The matter will next be heard on February 9, 2026. Henry also seeks an order to compel the corporation to give effect to the April 2020 ruling by Justice Kevin Ramcharan on the salary range she is to be paid.

Her lawsuit contends that the corporation’s failure to calculate her pension and gratuity at the correct salary range was unlawful.

According to Henry, Justice Ramcharan held that her right to equality of treatment by a public authority was infringed, and since his order, the corporation “failed and/or refused to facilitate the reclassification” of her post as acting city assessor. She contended that despite the clear terms of Justice Ramcharan’s order, her pension and gratuity were calculated at a lower salary range, which, her lawsuit maintains, is illegal as it “directly contravenes the court’s orders.”

Henry, who was employed at the corporation for 39 years, retired in June 2023.

She said long before her retirement, the corporation knew about Justice Ramcharan’s ruling and orders “to ensure I would receive my correct pension and gratuity.”

However, she said when she retired, she did not receive her gratuity but only a reduced interim pension of $3,500.

Her attorneys wrote to the corporation in March 2024, and were told in April 2024, her pension and gratuity were being quantified and audited. In July, her claim for assessment of damages came up before a Master of the High Court.

In September, a pre-action letter was sent to the corporation, pointing out that the substantial delay in paying her correct gratuity and pension was unlawful, irrational, in breach of procedural fairness and also in breach of her rights. The corporation responded that her pension and gratuity were calculated at the lower salary range of 41E. She said the response “clearly shows” that a decision was made to disregard Justice Ramcharan’s findings and orders.

Attorneys Kingsley Walesby and Sunil Gopaul Gosine represent Henry.

Appeal Court upholds $3.1m ruling for ex-Industrial Court member

THE Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling of the High Court in favour of former member of the Industrial Court Sam Maharaj, who was awarded more than $3 million in compensation for distress, inconvenience and pecuniary loss over the refusal of the Patrick Manning cabinet to renew his contract in 2000.

Justices of Appeal Gillian Lucky, Mira Dean-Armourer and Carla Brown-Antoine dismissed the appeal filed by the State against a 2019 ruling of Justice Frank Seepersad. A cross-appeal filed by Maharaj was also dismissed.

In a written decision in February 2019, in which he called for a review of the way appointments and re-appointments are made to that court, Seepersad ordered compensation for Maharaj of $3.17 million.

In December 2016, five months after Manning’s death, the London-based Privy Council delivered a ruling in favour of Maharaj, a former general secretary of the All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union, and sent his case back to the High Court to determine compensation.

In 2000, the then-labour minister was reported to have told cabinet that Maharaj could neither “write, read nor speak properly and was not suited to be a member of the Industrial Court.” The cabinet, acting on this representation, declined to reappoint Maharaj.

The Court of Appeal, in December 2014, ruled in Maharaj’s favour, but no compensation was awarded.

Maharaj first brought the judicial-review action in January 2004. He was represented by Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Nyala Badal.

EMBD $m cartel claim set for June

THE Estate Management Business Development Company Ltd (EMBD) multi-million dollar cartel claim lawsuit against a government minister and several contractors has gone to June 2026 as procedural issues continue to plague the almost decade-old case.

At a hearing on December 15, Justice Frank Seepersad set dates in February, April, and May for the filing of further material related to the lawsuit and set June 1, 2026, for the next hearing date before he gives further directions to take the case forward.

Back in September, Seepersad had issued a stern warning to parties that delays would not be tolerated after refusing an application by the EMBD to extend filing deadlines.

“The matters before the court raise important issues as to accountability, transparency, and the protection of the public purse, and they have generated significant political and public interest.

Seepersad had noted that the case, which dates back to 2017 and involved multiple defendants, including Energy Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, has already suffered excessive procedural delays.

He stressed that “delay slowly corrodes the steel of justice” and warned that the court will not tolerate further attempts to stall progress.

“The parties must understand that delay would not be countenanced, nor will the court allow its process to be manipulated to avoid efficient and timely resolution of these matters.

“After eight years, there will be a no-tolerance approach to delay, and as long as the instant matters remain docketed to this court, they will progress with alacrity,” he warned.

“This court operates on the premise that matters should be tried within two years of their institution and judgments must be delivered without delay.

The substantive lawsuit centres around 12 contracts for the rehabilitation of roads and infrastructure, which were granted to five contractors before the September 2015 general election.

TN Ramnauth and Company, Kall Co Limited (Kallco), and Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting initiated litigation against the state-owned special purpose company for the almost $200 million balance owed on their respective contracts.

EMBD countersued the contractors, claiming that they, as well as contractors Fides and Namalco, conspired together with Moonilal, former EMBD CEO Gary Parmassar, divisional manager Madhoo Balroop and engineer Andrew Walker to corruptly obtain the contracts. It also claimed that the parties agreed to facilitate the contractors receiving preliminary payments for the work, which was allegedly overpriced and substandard and utilised a loan meant to pay for other legitimate contracts to make the interim payments.

Through the lawsuit, EMBD is seeking $275 million plus interest and a series of declarations against the parties, including one on the illegality of the contracts.

Earlier this year, EMBD amended its case to claim that Moonilal served as a “shadow director” of the company, as its former officials reported to and took instructions from him. It claimed Moonilal breached his fiduciary duties and those under the Integrity in Public Life Act.

EMBD’s main new allegation was in relation to payments allegedly made by the contractors to third parties, who it claimed were connected to Moonilal and the United National Congress (UNC).

At the time of the amendment, then-opposition leader, now Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, described the case as a “political witch-hunt.”

Persad-Bissessar suggested that the latest allegations were “fabricated” and did not debar Moonilal from being screened for the April 28 general election.

While the EMBD fell under the Ministry of Housing during Moonilal’s previous tenure, it was recently transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Land, and Fisheries in May.

Moonilal was present at the virtual hearing on December 15.

Ex-worker, companies ordered by court to pay Ansa Bank $40m

The High Court has ordered a former employee and several companies to pay more than $40 million in damages, interest and costs to Ansa Bank Ltd, following findings that fraudulent loans were approved and processed through a conspiracy.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the order as he provided his assessment of damages in favour of Ansa Bank on December 15.

On November 20, the judge found that a former business development officer of the bank breached his contractual and fiduciary duties, and conspired with roll-on/roll-off car dealers, to defraud the financial institution of $30 million during a two-and-a-half-year loan scheme.

Justice Seepersad ruled against former ABL business development officer (BDO) Dwayne Rojas, ordering him to pay damages.

The judge found that Rojas, seconded to ABL’s banking division, knowingly processed fraudulent vehicle-loan applications supported by falsified job letters and fabricated certified extracts.

The court held that Rojas colluded with the used-car dealers to present non-existent vehicles as loan collateral, causing substantial loss to the bank.

On Monday, Rojas was ordered to pay $16,521,502.73 in damages, inclusive of two awards of interest and prescribed costs of $316,607.51.

The court accepted the bank’s evidence that Rojas approved or processed fraudulent loans totalling more than $27 million, less repayments, and adopted the bank’s calculations as accurate and representative of principal sums and interest owed.

In related default judgments, the court entered judgment against five corporate defendants – Ceylon Marketing Ltd, Joalex Auto Ltd, Miva Import Export Consultancy Ltd, Diamond Conceptions Company Ltd, and It’s A Deal Ltd.

In his assessment ruling, Seepersad ordered the following sums, inclusive of interest, to be paid to Ansa Bank: Ceylon Marketing Ltd, $6,298,314.67; Joalex Auto Ltd, $11,837,735.80; Miva Import Export Consultancy Ltd, $4,091,206.49; Diamond Conceptions, $389,923.79; and It’s A Deal Ltd, $837,313.37.

Prescribed costs were also awarded against each, ranging from $27,221.57 to $131,934.91.

Seepersad’s ruling also addressed costs arising from freezing injunctions imposed earlier in the proceedings. While the Court of Appeal had reinstated freezing injunctions against several defendants and awarded appellate costs, the judge declined to award additional injunction-related costs against those defendants.

Conversely, he ordered Ansa Bank to pay costs related to the freezing injunctions to three defendants against whom the substantive claims were dismissed, awarding $58,430 to the third defendant, $52,725 plus $1,010 in disbursements to the sixth defendant, and $33,000 to the 13th defendant.

The fifth defendant was ordered to pay $31,300 in costs to the bank in respect of a freezing injunction previously granted.

In sharply worded remarks, the judge criticised the bank’s pursuit of claims against certain junior employees, describing those cases as “ill-advised,” lacking merit and bona fides. The judge said litigation should not be used as a “fishing expedition” and cautioned that the court’s process must not unfairly and unjustly impact individuals.

“Litigation is serious business, and it imposes significant financial and emotional distress upon the parties. Extreme caution and discernment must be exercised, and regard must also be had for the limited resources of the court, and the court’s process must not be used as a fishing expedition.

“The case against each of these defendants was ill-advised, devoid of merit, and lacked bona fides, and the court formed the impression that the claimant was so addled by the magnitude of its losses due to the fraudulent loans that it adopted an almost bullying stance and inappropriately threw all the junior employees under the proverbial bus.

“Such action will not be countenanced as the lives of these litigants were unfairly and unjustly impacted.”

As a result, the court awarded prescribed trial costs to the third, fifth, sixth and 13th defendants, totalling more than $896,000, calculated after crediting repayments made toward the loans.

Ansa Bank had filed the civil lawsuit to recover about $30 million lost in a fraudulent vehicle-loan scheme. In one case, a driver’s permit showed it was issued when the applicant was 14-years-old.

In others, job letters contained glaring inconsistencies.

Vehicles listed as high-end collateral – including Lexus RXs, Range Rover Evoques and Sports, BMW X5s and X3s, and Jeep Rubicons – were later confirmed by the Transport Division to be lower-end vehicles or commercial trucks.

Justice Seepersad described Rojas’s conduct as “not carelessness, but more likely…in furtherance of a facinorous and opportunistic agenda,” noting evidence that he socialised regularly with representatives of several dealerships, which the court said supported an inference of collusion.

The judge had dismissed ABL’s claims against former employees Zaria Sankar, Reyvaan Rampersad and Kerry Ramsaroop, finding no proof of wrongdoing or conspiracy.

He also dismissed the case against Adriana Ramsingh, the former partner of ex-employee Randy Gottsleben, ruling there was no evidence linking her to any fraudulent conduct. A Master of the High Court will determine the quantum of damages to be paid to the bank by Gottsleben, as previously ordered by the judge.

Summary judgment had been granted against the five roll-on/roll-off companies. Default judgment was also entered against Arnold Ramjass, trading as Arnold Ramjass Auto Mechanical and Painting Garage, with damages to be assessed.

After five days of trial, the fourth defendant, Navindra Rambarran, entered into an agreement with the bank, and the claim against him was dismissed. Freezing orders remained in place against defendants for whom judgment has been entered.

Seepersad sharply criticised ABL’s internal controls, calling them “woefully wanting,” and faulted the bank for pursuing junior staff while senior officers who approved the loans were neither sued nor called as witnesses. He said the fraud was uncovered only after a whistle-blower wrote to a former bank director in June 2023.

The judge also ordered that the judgment be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police to consider whether criminal charges should be brought against Gottsleben, Rojas and the dealers.

He also directed that the decision be sent to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism to review whether the dealerships should retain their operating licences.

ABL was represented by Ian Benjamin, SC, Bryan McCutcheon and Candace Layers.

Leon Kalicharan and Samantha Singh-Poona represented Rojas; Vashisht Seepersad represented Sankar; Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, Shveta Parasram and Vandana Benny represented Rampersad; Avril Gay represented Ramsaroop, and Andre Koomalsingh represented Ramsingh.

Justice Seepersad calls for leadership rooted in integrity

HIGH COURT judge Frank Seepersad has called for astute leadership rooted in integrity, humility, and faith.

Justice Seepersad made the call while delivering the sermon at the Mizpah Presbyterian Church, Claxton Bay, during its 152nd anniversary service, on December 7.

“As a small island state, there is little that we can do to alter the actions of the superpowers, but prudent leadership requires strategic political, economic, and even military alliances while balancing respect for our sovereignty and national security.

“Ultimately, astute leadership demands the adoption of policies which ensure our collective protection and which prioritise the needs of the citizenry.”

Highlighting a global leadership crisis, he stressed that effective leaders must serve others, act with discipline, and prioritise collective needs over self-interest.

He also said true leadership begins with a heart yielded to God and a commitment to godliness.

“Leaders who walk with integrity and skill can transform lives, communities, and nations,” Seepersad said, urging congregants to live as examples of Christ’s teachings and to act as agents of positive change.

He also linked principled leadership to national progress, calling for bold, equitable decision-making to tackle social ills and foster peace, prosperity, and unity.

“The best leaders are also disciplined, and they tend to be individuals who have toiled in the vineyards, surmounted obstacles, and are likely people who, through sheer focus, have overcome the odds.”

According to the judge, for a good leader, their word is their bond.

“They deliver results to make their promises materialise. The discerning among us should, therefore, gauge their efficacy by evaluating whether promises made have been delivered.”

He added, “The best leaders also prioritise collective interests and are not just focused on those who are influential or who are the moneyed players.

“They are prepared to challenge the status quo, and they have the fortitude to effect difficult, but necessary decisions while they act with empathy and equity.”

According to Seepersad, a country can thrive when its leaders “pragmatically prioritise the needs of the majority and who are prepared to make decisive decisions which are designed to decimate disadvantage and to disrupt those who disturb the peace and destroy lives through drugs, domestic violence, exploitation, and criminal activity.”

He also advocated change on a national level because of unacceptable levels of “divisive discourse.”

“And, our economy requires transformation. The needed changes for the survival of both church and country require a change in our collective mindset.

“Now, we must work in unison to prioritise Godly-living, reject the culture of dependency, focus upon service above self, and work towards being agents of change and inspiration. “Ultimately, in every sphere, we must all work together, with discipline and tolerance, to achieve our required objectives.”

While he offered advice to leaders, Seepersad also called on individuals to “shoulder some responsibilities.”

“We need to take charge of our circumstances and understand that each of us has to control our path and fashion our individual destiny.

“With bold confidence, we must acknowledge that we catalyse meaningful change by following the law, adhering to due process, and by focusing on the contributions which we are poised and able to make.”

Teaching Service Commission restrained from appointing principal to Sixth Form Polytechnic

THE acting principal of the Sixth Form Government Polytechnic Institute has been granted permission by the High Court to challenge a decision of the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) that deemed her ineligible for promotion to principal (secondary), despite her having more than the minimum academic qualifications.

Justice Frank Seepersad ruled on Nisha Thomas’s application on December 4. He also extended the deadline for her application and questioned the logic of the commission’s stance, saying its decision appeared, at this stage, to “defy logic and common sense.”

In granting leave, Seepersad also issued an interim injunction blocking the TSC from appointing a substantive principal to the Sixth Form Government Polytechnic Institute in St James at least until December 15, when the matter is expected to return to court.

According to Thomas’ application, she applied in April for the post of principal (secondary). She said the TSC first notified her by letter dated August 18, that she was ineligible for consideration because she was not “in possession of a Bachelor’s Degree from a recognised university.” A second letter on October 24, defended the decision.

Thomas argues the findings were irrational, based on an unsupported assumption, failed to consider relevant information and denied her a fair hearing. She is seeking declarations that her legitimate expectation to be considered for the post was breached and orders quashing both decisions.

Thomas, a teacher since 1990, has held the substantive post of head of department since 2013, a role that required a bachelor’s degree. She earned a BA in history from the University of the West Indies in 1994. She has also acted as principal of the Sixth Form Government Polytechnic Institute since August 6, 2021, by TSC appointment.

In April, the Ministry of Education invited applications for principal (secondary) positions. Candidates were required to have at least eight years of post–diploma teaching experience, two years of service as vice principal, a bachelor’s degree in a specialty subject and a teaching certificate. Thomas applied before the deadline but later learned that other acting principals were being contacted for interviews while she received no response. Thomas said she misplaced her bachelor’s certificate during a previous master’s program application and did not upload it, believing the TSC already had evidence of her degree from her appointment as head of department.

When she visited the commission in late August seeking an update, she was told she was considered not to have a degree and that even a replacement certificate would not change her eligibility because the application period had closed. She later wrote the TSC chairman, explaining that she held both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree, and submitted a replacement certificate when she received it from UWI. She also sought assistance from the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers Association (TTUTA), which wrote twice to the TSC, also for other applicants had experienced issues with the transmission of documents.

One acting vice principal in south Trinidad who initially faced similar issues was eventually interviewed, her application said.

On November 17, Thomas was informed the commission would stand by its decision.

“There could be no reasonable dispute that she had the qualification,” her application contends.

Thomas is seeking declarations, orders to quash the TSC’s decisions and for the TSC to reconsider her eligibility and schedule an interview.

“There is a limited number of vacant offices of principal (secondary),” her injunction application said.

She is represented by attorneys Ian Roach, Anthony Bullock and Alatashe Girvan.

Judge in T&TEC’s ‘misrepresentation’ claim: Sort it out

A High Court judge has declined to rule on whether any party misled the court in a doctor’s legal battle with the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) over its policy for installing high-tension wires on private property.

Instead, Justice Frank Seepersad corrected the official record and advised T&TEC to “thoroughly and comprehensively” investigate the conflicting instructions reportedly given by its in-house legal officer to former external counsel. He said the commission must put proper checks in place to ensure such a situation “never happens again,” during a hearing on November 24.

The issue arose after T&TEC’s legal officer, Candace Price, filed an affidavit stating that former external counsel had misrepresented the commission’s position on policy documents. Her affidavit came after the judge ordered T&TEC to produce the policy governing the installation of high-tension power lines over private land. Price said T&TEC did not intend to mislead the court.

In October, Seepersad had ruled that T&TEC breached its statutory obligation under the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to Dr Fayard Mohammed’s September 26, 2024, request for the policy. Mohammed sought the information after power lines were installed across his land without disclosure of the applicable rules. Senior Counsel Keith Scotland, Asha Watkins-Montserin, and Keisha Kydd-Hannibal previously represented T&TEC. Scotland said he was “aggrieved” by public reporting that implied he was required to “answer” for instructions given, arguing that the coverage damaged his reputation. The judge noted that any such concerns were a matter between counsel and the former client. Seepersad said the court “deprecates dishonesty” and considers the withholding of material facts a “frontal attack” on the administration of justice. But he added that the court could not decide whether the conflicting accounts resulted from “deliberate design, misrepresentation by counsel, genuine confusion or inadvertence,” because Price’s affidavit contradicted Kydd-Hannibal’s affidavit and supporting WhatsApp messages. In correcting the court’s record, the judge said it must accurately reflect that T&TEC has no single written policy document. Instead, he said, the commission is guided by legislation, guidelines, regulations, internal procedures and international standards that collectively form its framework for installing high-tension lines.

In an affidavit in objection, Kydd-Hannibal said she was twice instructed by Price, both orally and in writing, that no policy document existed, and she relied on those instructions in the related litigation.

She said she was never told that previous representations in court were inaccurate. She asked the court to strike parts of Price’s affidavit that conflicted with instructions she said she was given.

Price suggested that former counsel misunderstood T&TEC’s explanations. She maintained that T&TEC consistently advised that no single policy but multiple documents formed the governing framework. She said the commission never instructed counsel that information requested under Mohammed’s FOIA “did not exist.”

Seepersad said the court could not resolve the dispute over what instructions were actually given. But he said the inconsistency raised concerns about public trust and required an internal investigation to prevent similar issues in the future.

He formally amended the record to reflect that T&TEC operates without a single comprehensive policy document but relies on a suite of legal and technical instruments. He declined to determine responsibility for earlier misstatements, directing the commission instead to conduct “a thorough and comprehensive investigation” to restore public confidence and ensure transparency in its dealings with the court.

Anand Ramlogan, SC, Jared Jagroo, Ganesh Saroop and Candice Ramkhelawan now represent T&TEC. Farai Hove Masaisai and Chelsea Edwards represented Mohammed, who has a separate lawsuit against T&TEC over the erection of high-tension wires on his property.

Minister urges quick resolution to Trillion’s defamation claim

TWO investment entities and their principal will have to get new attorneys to advance their defamation claim against Energy and Energy Industries Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal by January 2026.

Justice Frank Seepersad ordered the attorney on record for Trillions Systems Ltd, Rose Capital Investments Ltd and businessman James Kerron Rose, to notify his clients of his intention to “cease to act.”

The judge said Rose and the companies must appear either in person, through counsel or with new representation when the matter comes up again on January 12.

Attorney Farai Hove Masaisai told the court the “cease to act” application had been communicated to and served on Rose and the companies. “We did tell them if we were not getting instructions, we would have to cease to act.”

Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, who represents the minister, raised concern that none of the court’s previous directions had been met.

“My Lord, we are nearing almost a year with this matter, and we are still at the pleading stage,” he said. Ramlogan stressed that Moonilal, a member of the government and a public figure, wanted the matter dealt with urgently.

“This matter hangs over him, and it takes up a lot of time unnecessarily. But, more importantly, from a matter of public interest, I just want to remind you that the statement of case pleaded that this is a substantial corporation.

“The person claims they are a member of the million-dollar round table in the insurance industry, they are sponsoring a nationwide community football league with a prize of $100,000 and a whole host of things.

“Now, to the extent that they have put forward themselves as substantial claimants in the public interest and in the public eye, as it were, and they sought to file a claim for defamation against Dr Moonilal. We are very concerned that their own lawyer cannot seem to get in touch with them because, in our defence, we have pleaded equal matters of competing public interest, whereby there are serious allegations about a lot of money that has been invested by innocent members of the public who have simply… basically, it’s a Ponzi scheme allegation.

“I really would like to ensure that this person appears in person or through an attorney on the next occasion, and I do want to meaningfully advance the progress of this matter because the defendant would like to get on with the allegation of illegal quarrying. It’s also a very serious allegation that he made that we stand by. That’s why I ask specifically for Mr Masaisai, before he’s completely discharged of his obligations to ensure that service is effected on the litigant with respect to the particulars of the next date of hearing in January.

The defamation suit stems from statements Moonilal made during a September 8, 2024, press briefing streamed on the United National Congress’s Facebook page and on his personal social media accounts. Rose and the two companies allege Moonilal falsely and maliciously linked them to illegal quarrying, questionable state contracts, and other financial improprieties.

They contend the statements caused reputational harm, business losses and emotional distress, and that Moonilal allowed the posts to remain online without verification, correction or apology. In May, Seepersad granted Moonilal an extension until June 16 to file his defence after the claimants withdrew a request for default judgment. Rose and the companies are seeking damages, a full retraction, removal of the allegedly defamatory content and an injunction barring further publication.

They claimed that Moonilal acted with “reckless disregard for the truth” and that the statements triggered “a storm of online speculation and defamatory commentary.” Moonilal has denied wrongdoing and insists the allegations were raised in the public interest.

High Court rules in ANSA Bank Ltd’s $30m fraud case

THE High Court has delivered its ruling in the lawsuit brought by ANSA Bank Limited (ABL) to recover $30 million from six of its former employees, five roll-on/roll-off dealers and a client.

In a 100-plus page ruling, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed ABL’s claims against four of its former employees and the former partner of one but found that a former business development officer of the bank breached his contractual and fiduciary duties and conspired with roll-on/roll-off car dealers to defraud the financial institution of the $30 million during the two-and-a-half-year loan scheme.

Justice Seepersad ruled against former ABL business development officer (BDO) Dwayne Rojas.

The judge found that Rojas, seconded to ABL’s banking division, knowingly processed fraudulent vehicle-loan applications supported by falsified job letters and fabricated certified extracts. The court held that Rojas colluded with the used-car dealers to present non-existent vehicles as loan collateral, causing substantial loss to the bank.

Rojas worked as a BDO at ABL from August 2017 before being seconded to the claimant in January 2021. Justice Seepersad found that his duties included verifying loan documents, assessing the authenticity of job letters and vehicle information, ensuring compliance with AML/KYC rules, and reporting suspicious transactions.

In the same ruling, Justice Seepersad dismissed ABL’s cases against former employees Zaria Sankar, Reyvaan Rampersad, and Kerry Ramsaroop, finding the bank had failed to establish wrongdoing or any involvement in a conspiracy. He also dismissed the case against Adriana Ramsingh, the former partner of another former employee Randy Gottsleben, against whom judgment in default had been previously entered. Summary judgment had been granted against the five roll-on/roll-off companies – Ceylon Marketing Ltd, Joalex Auto Ltd, Miva Import Export Consultancy Ltd, Diamond Conception Company Ltd and It’s A Deal Ltd – ordering them to repay ABL a total of $24 million received through the fraudulent loan scheme.

Judgment in default was also granted against Arnold Ramjass (of Arnold Ramjass Auto Mechanical and Painting Gargage, with damages to be assessed.

After the five days of trial, the fourth defendant in the case, Navindra Rambarran, entered into an agreement with the bank so the claim against him was dismissed.

There were 13 defendants in all. Freezing orders remain in place against those defendants for whom judgment has been entered.

In his ruling, Justice Seepersad held that Rojas repeatedly failed to fulfil these obligations and intentionally overlooked glaring irregularities in loan files. One loan applicant’s driver’s permit indicated it was issued when the applicant was 14 years old; others submitted job letters with significant inconsistencies. In every highlighted case, the vehicles listed as collateral did not exist. According to the judgment, loan transactions for high-end luxury vehicles – Lexus RXs, Range Rover Evoques and Sports, BMW X5 and X3s, Jeep Rubicons – were made. After checks were made with the Transport Division, they turned out to be lower-end vehicles such as Nissan Marches, Toyota Raize and Volkswagon Jetta, Hyundai H100 and Nissan Caravan Toyota Hiace, and a Fuso Canter delivery truck.

The judge rejected Rojas’s explanation that BDOs were not trained to verify certified extracts, stating he had a duty to detect obvious discrepancies. The court found his pattern of conduct “not carelessness, but more likely … in furtherance of a facinorous and opportunistic agenda.”

Evidence showed Rojas socialised regularly with representatives of several roll-on/roll-off dealerships at bars in Chaguanas. The judge found this indicated “an unusual relationship” inconsistent with ordinary professional contact and supported an inference of collusion.

He concluded that Rojas acted with the intention to injure ABL, likely benefited financially, and conspired with co-defendants to mislead the bank through fabricated documents and false loan applications.

The court held Sankar competently discharged her duties, relied lawfully on closing documents prepared by the bank’s attorneys, and had no reason to suspect fraud. Justice Seepersad found no evidence linking her to any conspiracy or unlawful means. Rampersad was implicated in only two transactions and the judge ruled he had no duty to review the work of BDOs not assigned to him and that senior officials approved the loans.

The judge criticised ABL for failing to call those senior approvers as witnesses, calling the omission “striking” and “deeply curious.” As an operations supervisor, Ramsaroop had no proven obligation to verify loan-document authenticity, according to the judge. His work was described as “slipshod,” but the judge held that errors did not amount to fraud or breach of contract.

Ramsingh, who was not an ABL employee, was cleared of all allegations. The court ruled that any irregularities involving her property transaction stemmed solely from the conduct of the Gottsleben, with whom she had a personal relationship. The judge said there was no evidence tying her to any fraudulent acts.

Justice Seepersad sharply criticised ABL for targeting junior staff while avoiding action against senior officers who approved the loans. He noted that managers such as Arnand Ramlal, Edmund Joachim, Reynold Thomas, and Robert Le Hunte signed off on the transactions but were not made parties to the suit or called as witnesses.

He also found ABL’s internal controls “woefully wanting.” He said there were inadequate verification systems, absence of mandatory vehicle inspections, and a focus on market expansion over risk management. The fraud was discovered only after a whistle-blower raised concerns in a letter to former bank director Larry Howai in June 2023.

“In this court’s view, the patent and visible contradictory information which was manifest on documents such as the job letters and invoices ought to have immediately incited suspicion in the minds of these approving officers even though initial approval was issued by the first and second defendants.

“It appears that the claimant was myopically focused on building its market share and in its pursuit of this objective, no satisfactory safeguards or supervisory vigilance was implemented in its dealing with the preferred roll-on roll-off dealers.

“The woefully wanting systems and lax approach were quickly identified and exploited by the first and second defendants and the roll-on roll-off defendants. It is also difficult to understand why mandatory physical verification of the vehicles allegedly purchased was never engaged and why there existed no policy which mandated such verification especially after the claimant had previously discovered that persons on the Business Development and Operations Teams respectively had made significant errors in the inputting of vital data.

“The claimant’s lack of proper internal processes and carelessness could have seriously compromised their financial viability and fortunately for it and its depositors, concerns over these questionable loans were brought to its attention by the whistle-blower.”

According to the judge, “In a society where many have suffered as a result of the demise of CLICO and the Hindu Credit Union, as a responsible financial institution, the claimant owed a duty of care to its investors and more importantly, its depositors, to have implemented better internal systems to protect their financial interests and to minimise the occurrence of schemes such as those which were perpetrated by the first and second defendants and the roll-on roll-off companies.”

Given the court’s findings, Justice Seepersad ordered that the judgment be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued against Gottsleben, Rojas and the roll-on/roll-off dealers.

“This court has found, on a balance of probabilities,, that their conduct was fraudulent and was calculated to, and did in fact, occasion financial harm to the claimant and, by extension, to all citizens who were depositors.

“The type of actions which were engaged ought not to be tolerated and wrongdoers at every level must be held to account. This society must adopt a zero-tolerance approach to unlawful conduct in all its manifestations.”

He also directed that the decision be forwarded to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism to review whether the implicated dealerships should retain their operating licences. The quantum of restitution to be paid by Gottsleben and Rojas would be determined at a later stage as well as the issue of costs to be paid by ABL to those former employees against whom the claim was dismissed as well as costs related to the previous injunction applications.

Seepersad also urged attorneys to adhere to the timelines ordered by the court to enable judges to deliver timely rulings.

In advising attorneys to not only manage their time effectively or even refuse cases, he noted, “The judicial system is plagued by systematic delays and the absence of self-regulation by judicial officers, leadership, and accountability has led to a culture of reserved judgments. Citizens deserve the timely delivery of reasoned decisions and a court’s pivotal responsibility is to determine disputes efficiently and effectively according to the law and the evidence.”

He warned, “The Bench and Bar share an almost symbiotic relationship and moving forward a no-tolerance approach to applications for extensions of time to file submissions, save for the most unexpected of circumstances, needs to be adopted.” ABL was represented by Ian Benjamin, SC, Bryan McCutcheon and Candace Layers. Leon Kalicharan and Samantha Singh-Poona represented Rojas; Vashisht Seepersad represented Sankar; Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, Shveta Parasram and Vandana Benny represented Rampersad; Avril Gay represented Ramsaroop and Andre Koomalsingh represented Ramsingh.

St Joseph developer takes Works Ministry, Director of Drainage to court

A Maracas, St Joseph developer has been granted leave to challenge what it alleges is the unlawful refusal and delay by the Director of Drainage and the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure to issue a completion certificate for a development in Manuel Congo, Arima.

On October 29, Justice Frank Seepersad granted leave to Jabell Construction and Transportation Ltd (JCTL) to pursue judicial review proceedings over the requisite approvals for the Hugh Lee-King Development.

The case is set for a hearing on December 10.

According to the developer, despite full compliance with approved 2017 drainage designs certified as “adequate and satisfactory,” the ministry required the company to redesign and redevelop its stormwater outfall system, years after the project’s completion. The company argues that the new requirement is irrational, unreasonable, and contrary to the legitimate expectation that final certification would follow once works were completed to approved specifications.

According to court documents, JCTL asserts that the ministry’s decision relied on factual errors and irrelevant considerations, including mistaken assumptions that water from the development entered the main watercourse at a 90-degree angle, potentially causing flooding. The company maintains that its drainage discharges occur at a 45-degree angle and that any 90-degree entry is from an adjoining, unrelated development.

The company’s managing director, Roger Bellamy, identified severe financial hardship resulting from the ministry’s continued delay, including the risk of foreclosure and loss of home sales.

“As a direct result of the intended defendants’ unlawful actions as aforesaid, the intended claimant continues to suffer loss and detriment, on account of having lost clients who purchased lots from the subject development prior to construction.

“The intended claimant incurred losses as a result of the cancellation of a number of sale agreements.

“Consequently, the intended claimant has been unable to meet its financial obligations under the loan agreement with the Home Mortgage Bank wherein it attained a loan of $125,000,000 for the purposes of financing the subject development.”

The application said the developer had suffered from loss of profit from the sale of homes, and losses related to construction costs and the principal sum of the borrowed amount, along with interest.

The court documents said that despite repeated letters and meetings between 2024 and 2025, the company received no substantive response or written confirmation of required remedial works.

The developer seeks declarations that the ministry’s actions were unlawful, along with orders compelling the issuance of the completion certificate or, alternatively, a reconsideration of its application. The company is also asking for damages, costs, and interest.

“On May 14, 2025, Mr Bellamy wrote to the Minister of Works seeking intervention in the matter, and citing the financial prejudice suffered by the intended claimant due to the refusal and/or delay in issuing the completion certificate for the subject development.

“No response was received from the minister.”

The court filings also said that from May to July, Bellamy unsuccessfully sought the minister’s intervention, “citing the financial prejudice suffered,” but there was “no assistance forthcoming from the minister.”

The developer is represented by Kiel Taklalsingh, Kristy Mohan and Johanna Richards.

Judge rules detention of 2 men in Maloney robbery probe was lawful

Two men who claimed they were wrongfully detained by police investigating a 2021 robbery in Maloney have lost their false imprisonment lawsuit against the State.

Justice Frank Seepersad ruled that the four-to-five-hour detention of Kenya Pitman, of Maitagual, San Juan, and Michael Joseph, of Malick, Barataria, was reasonable given the circumstances of the investigation at the time. The court, however, declined to order the men to pay the state’s legal costs.

“The court cannot conclude that the period of detention was unreasonable in the circumstances,” Seepersad said in his oral decision after the trial on October 28.

The judge noted that police acted “with alacrity” based on information available to them and commended their response as “commendable.”

“When one considers evidence in this case, the court is of the view that the police officers acted reasonably.

“Based on the information which they had, and while there’s a certain amount of empathy extended towards the claimants and for the undoubtedly uncomfortable situation which they endured, because no one reasonably would want to spend any time in a police station, whether it is to make a complaint or as a detainee.”

The judge said, “It must be understood that citizenship is not characterised only by the receipt of benefits and the concept must inherently impose aspects of responsibility and at times inconvenience, especially in a society such as ours, which is plagued with crime.

“The cacophony for the curbing of crime and for the arrest of the culpable is continuous and the thrust of the public angst is directed towards the police. They are expected to detect and deter the criminal elements.

“It is either that the police are not doing their job, they are not apprehending the criminals, or they are not acting in a proactive manner to prevent the commission of crime.

“In this case, however, the conduct of the police cannot be faulted because they acted with alacrity.

“They acted based on reports which were given, and they pursued all of the information that unfolded on the evening in a manner which is commendable.

“It is unfortunate that as they were collating and receiving this information and acting in real time, that it led to the detention of the claimants…”

Seepersad described it as “an unfortunate situation.”

Pitman and Joseph were held at the Maloney Police Station on October 21, 2021, after police linked them to the robbery of a maxi taxi on the Churchill Roosevelt Highway near Bestcrete.

The men, who were held in D’Abadie, said they were visiting a friend when plainclothes officers stopped, searched, and detained them at gunpoint. They were later released without charge.

Constables Alex Salina and Chris Williams, who were the two police officers to testify at the trial at the Waterfront Judicial Centre, Port of Spain, disputed the men’s claims.

Seepersad found that the officers had “reasonable and probable cause” to arrest and detain Pitman and Joseph and that their actions were lawful. In dismissing the case, the judge called it “devoid of merit,” but ordered that each party bear its own legal costs. Tricia Ramlogan represented the State, while Christophe Rodriguez and Randy Tikah represented Pitman and Joseph.

Court grants teacher leave to challenge TSC disclosure refusual

A Technical Vocational teacher has been granted leave by the High Court to pursue judicial review proceedings against the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) over its refusal to disclose documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Justice Frank Seepersad permitted Adriel Cruickshank to pursue his claim for several orders, including one to quash the TSC’s July 28 decision denying access to specific documents related to a disciplinary investigation. The documents, requested in a March 19 freedom of information (FOI) application, include the investigating officer’s report, findings, recommendations, statements, and related correspondence.

Cruickshank, a Teacher I assigned to Marabella North Secondary School, alleges the TSC’s refusal breaches his statutory and constitutional rights under sections 4(d) and 5(2)(h) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of treatment and protection of the law. His application argued that access to the report was crucial to mounting a proper defence in pending disciplinary proceedings.

“The investigating officer’s report is essential to mounting a proper defence in the applicant’s case. To date that pivotal document has not been provided by either the tribunal or case presenter and the Teaching Service Commission’s refusal decision in its letter dated July 28th, 2025 is a brazen attempt to deny the applicant justice.”

The claim further seeks a declaration that the TSC acted illegally and unreasonably by failing to comply with sections 14, 15, and 23 of the FOI Act, which mandate prompt responses and reasons for denial. An order of mandamus is also sought to compel the commission to provide the withheld documents within seven days.

The claim referred to previous High Court rulings where similar reports were eventually disclosed after judicial intervention, and Cruickshank’s attorney Ricky Pandohee contends that the TSC’s conduct amounts to an abuse of power and a denial of justice.

“It appears that the only time that the Teaching Service Commission is moved to disclose the investigating officer’s report is when proceedings are filed in the High Court of Justice.”

Cruickshank has also asked the court to stay the disciplinary tribunal hearings until the judicial review is resolved.

The matter is set for a case management conference on December 10.

Judge stays lawsuit on SoE regulations on police detention powers

A High Court judge has stayed proceedings in a constitutional challenge against the Emergency Powers Regulations, 2025, pending a ruling from the Privy Council on a related case.

Delivering his decision on October 16, Justice Frank Seepersad said that while he found it “inherently inconsistent and wholly unnecessary” for police officers to share powers with magistrates to extend detention periods beyond 48 hours, his hands were tied by an existing Court of Appeal decision upholding the constitutionality of a similar provision.

“Suffice it to say, in as much as the regulation recognises that a magistrate can also make an order of longer detention, I find it inherently inconsistent and wholly unnecessary that that power was also extended to the police, especially in a society where the public does not repose much trust and confidence in the police,” Seepersad said. “However, the Court of Appeal has already expressed a view on the constitutionality of an equivalent provision.”

The judge noted that the Court of Appeal had upheld Regulation 16 of the 2011 Emergency Powers Regulations, which mirrors Regulation 13(3) of the current 2025 regulations, except for the extension from 24 to 48 hours. That appellate ruling found the measure reasonably justifiable and not in contravention of sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution.

Given that the earlier case is now before the Privy Council, Seepersad said it would be premature for the High Court to issue a declaration, even a provisional one, on the constitutionality of the new regulation. He therefore ordered that Mozam Edoo’s claim be stayed pending the Privy Council’s determination.

Edoo, represented by attorneys Sunil Gopaul-Gosine and Vishan Gopaul-Gosine, has argued that Regulation 13(3) breaches the separation of powers by giving police, as members of the executive, authority to perform a judicial function. His claim seeks to remove the power of police officers to extend detention under emergency regulations.

Earlier in the hearing, the judge rebuked the state for its previous non-appearance in the matter which was previously adjourned to accommodate state representation.

He warned the court “will not tolerate administrative inefficiencies” within the state’s civil law department.

Justice Seepersad expressed concern that “every possible opportunity has been afforded to the defendant to come before the court” and described the state’s absence as “alarming,” given that the claim challenges powers that allow police officers to extend detention beyond 48 hours without judicial oversight.

“The court cannot be expected to accommodate administrative inefficiencies, not when matters that touch and concern the rights of citizens are at play,” he said.

The judge briefly stood down the matter because of its importance. He also said he was not prepared to have it in abeyance to the end of the current state of emergency, declared on July 18, and extended by parliament for three months, rendering the matter “academic.”

“If there are systemic inadequacies in the Office of the Solicitor General, notwithstanding all of the reform that has recently taken place, those are internal issues that need to be sorted out,” Seepersad said.

T&TEC ordered to provide policy on high-tension power lines on private property

THE Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) has been given 14 days to provide information on its policy on installing high-tension power lines over private property.

Justice Frank Seepersad gave the order in a ruling on October 15. The judge found T&TEC breached its statutory obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when it failed to respond to a request by Dr Fayard Mohammed.

Mohammed had filed a private law claim after T&TEC installed high-tension power lines on his private property.

He was told by the state that there was a policy for doing so, but this was not disclosed, forcing him to get the information through a freedom of information request. Justice Seepersad is also presiding over that matter.

Dr Mohammed then applied for judicial review after T&TEC did not issue a decision within the 30 days of his request on September 26, 2024, as required by law.

In his ruling, Seepersad found that the commission’s delay and later refusal —based on claims of sub judice and “fishing expedition”—were unlawful and unsupported by any valid exemption under the FOIA.

Justice Seepersad said, “There is simply no statutory exemption made for the sub judice rule or for the prevention of fishing expeditions.

“Having considered the response to the applicant’s FOI request, this court also holds the view that the sub judice rule and the prevention of fishing expeditions, the two reasons advanced by the respondent for refusing access, were positions which were devoid of merit and did not amount to justiciable reasons for the non-provision of the requested information.”

In deciding the case, Justice Seepersad said T&TEC’s failure to provide any substantive decision within the statutorily-prescribed time period was a breach of the FOIA, was unreasonable and irrational.

“Administrative inefficiency and/or the lack of resources cannot be used as a defence for non-compliance with mandatory statutory obligations.

“The breach of statutory obligations violates public trust, erodes accountability, transparency, and ultimately, undermines the entire legislative scheme of the FOIA.”

Justice Seepersad declared that T&TEC violated Sections 13, 15, and 23 of the FOIA by failing to notify Dr Mohammed of its decision within the prescribed time, failing to provide written reasons for refusal, and breaching his legitimate expectation that his request would be processed lawfully and fairly.

“The applicant had a legitimate expectation that the public authority would follow the law and discharge the obligations imposed by the FOIA, and that legitimate expectation was frustrated by the actions and/or omissions of the respondent.”

Justice Seepersad also rejected the commission’s arguments that the application constituted an abuse of process or that Dr Mohammed failed to exhaust alternative remedies, while also dismissing T&TEC’s claims of nondisclosure.

“The respondent’s attempt to shift procedural blame onto the applicant is rather unfortunate and amounts to a disingenuous deflection from its statutory noncompliance.”

The judge added, “It must be understood that requested information is often required for advancement or institution of litigation, and time is, in those circumstances, of the essence. “Therefore, it would be unfair and disproportionate to curtail the advancement of any such position by mandating that an applicant is obligated to seek recourse to the Ombudsman before invoking the court’s jurisdiction.

“Applications under the FOIA should never be viewed as ‘litigation tactics’, but rather, they are expressions of a citizen’s right to access information held by public bodies.

“The entire scheme of the FOIA is oriented towards ensuring that aggrieved persons can gain access to documents and information held by public bodies, and reliance on that statutory scheme to achieve its fundamental goal cannot be properly be described as a ‘parallel tactic’ or ‘oppressive litigation’.”

In directing T&TEC to provide the information and granting the declarations sought, the judge also ordered that it pay Dr Mohammed’s costs. Dr Mohammed was represented by Farai Hove Masaisai and Chelsea Edwards. Senior Counsel Keith Scotland, Asha Watkins-Montserin and Keisha Kydd-Hannibal appeared for T&TEC.

Trial dates in 2026 likely for Warner Group challenge to police raid on quarry

Trial dates for the constitutional claim filed by companies owned by businessman Allan Warner, a longtime friend of former prime minister Dr Keith Rowley, are likely to be set later this month for 2026.

Justice Frank Seepersad is presiding over a lawsuit by Warner’s companies — Warns Quarry Company Ltd, Warner Construction and Sanitation Ltd, Inez Investments Ltd, Pres-T-con 2021 Ltd, and Allcrete Ltd — and 12 people, including Warner’s son Akulo Warner, charged with illegal mining, who are challenging the police’s detention of heavy equipment and a property seized as part of an ongoing investigation into their mining operation.

Seepersad adjourned the matter to October 29, after attorneys for the Attorney General asked for a short adjournment to settle the issue of legal representation.

The judge granted the request, which, he said, was not unreasonable given the change of attorney general after the April 28 general election. Trial dates, the judge said, are likely in the new year given the court’s calendar.

The claimants in the case are Warns Quarry Company Ltd, Warner Construction and Sanitation Ltd, Inez Investments Ltd, Pres-T-Con 2021 Ltd, Allcrete Ltd, Warner’s son Aluko, employees Robert Wilson, Ricky Joseph, Corey Charles, Kimal Williams, Willinsque Tobias, and Shastri Madhoo and independent contractors Rueben Maprangala, Deon George, Rudy Sahai, Aaron Neptune, and Ahmeed David.

In 2024, the group filed a lawsuit contending that an ongoing police probe, which resulted in the individuals being charged with engaging in illegal quarrying, was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Through an associated injunction application, they sought the return of heavy equipment, tools and communication devices seized by police officers during raids in December 2023 and in May 2024, as well as the release of a 16.67-hectare parcel of land in Wallerfield commandeered by the police as part of their probe.

They also sought the release of a large quantity of original documents that were seized from their offices.

In the lawsuit, the group’s lawyers noted that Pres-T-Con obtained a 25-year lease from a company for the Wallerfield property in January 2022.

Pres-T-Con granted permission to Warns Quarry to occupy the property, and the latter was granted a licence from the Commissioner of State Lands on May 20, 2024.

They noted that the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries granted Warns Quarry a conditional authorisation to undertake mineral processing at the property until the end of this year.

Warner, his son, and seven employees and associates were charged with processing aggregate without a licence under Section 45(1)(a) of the Minerals Act.

The group, which has denied any wrongdoing, faces a $200,000 fine and imprisonment for two years if they are eventually convicted.

In September 2024, Seepersad dismissed the injunction application.

Several months later, appellate judges Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar rejected an appeal from the group alleging that Justice Seepersad erred in his decision.

In July, the Privy Council refused Warns Quarry and Pres-T-Con permission to appeal preliminary rulings delivered by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

A separate appeal filed by the larger group is pending. Seepersad has also previously permitted the group and the Attorney General to produce evidence of expert witnesses.

Attorney Farai Hove Masasai represent the group. Ian Benjamin, SC, Tekijah Jorsling, and Vincent Jardine represent the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Court grants extensions in Danny Guerra’s lawsuit against police

Businessman Danny Guerra’s constitutional case against the police over alleged violations of his and his company’s rights has been adjourned to later this year, as both parties sought more time to file written submissions.

Justice Frank Seepersad granted the extension without a hearing and rescheduled the matter to November 27. It was listed for hearing on October 13. Guerra’s attorneys must file their submissions by October 31, while the state has until November 28 to respond. Guerra’s legal team will have until December 19 to file any replies. Guerra, who owns DG Homes Ltd, filed the constitutional motion claiming police officers violated his rights during a May 2024 search of his company’s Sangre Grande office. He alleged that police, led by Sgt Rajesh Antoine of the Special Investigations Unit, denied him legal representation during the search.

In January, Seepersad upheld an injunction preventing officers from continuing their probe into Guerra’s business. Guerra said he provided payroll records to Ministry of Labour officials, who found no wage violations, but claimed Antoine continued to question him about hiring non-citizens and demanded access to the company’s safe.

On October 11, Guerra, his son, and 17 workers were charged with unlawfully processing aggregate without a licence from the Ministry of Energy. They were arrested during a police operation on October 9, released on bail. They are expected to appear before an Arima magistrate on October 22.

Judge urges Nike, Puma to donate, not destroy bootleg footwear

A High Court judge has suggested that US sportswear companies Nike Innovate CV and Puma SE consider donating thousands of seized counterfeit sneakers and slippers to charity instead of destroying them.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the proposal during a hearing on October 1 on the fate of 7,300 pairs of fake Nike, Air Jordan and Jordan-branded slippers, along with 660 counterfeit Puma slippers, that were seized by Customs in December 2023 from Penal-based DB Funstyles Clothing Ltd. Attorneys Miguel Vásquez and Fanta Punch represented Nike and Puma, while Rajiv Sochan appeared for DB Funstyles, which previously accepted liability for trademark infringement. Seepersad ruled in favour of the companies on September 8 and ordered the destruction of the counterfeit stock.

At the hearing on October 1, Seepersad noted that the cost of destruction, estimated at $15,409.92, might outweigh the option of removing brand logos and donating the items to people in need.

“Has any thought been given to when the items are delivered, instead of destruction, for the removal of the infringing trademark or identifying mark that associates the product with the claimant? That may be cheaper, and if the trademark is removed, then you have shoes which could probably be distributed to a charity.

“And, you know, there are many poor people in this country, their children who have started school and may need school shoes. Of course, the claimants’ reputation can be preserved if its identifying marks can be removed.

“There’s a significant number of goods and a significant number of slippers. One would presume, if there were a way to remove the trademark, these would not be perfect-looking items…It’s ready items which could be used more for their utility than their appearance.”

Vásquez said it was something the companies have looked at, but noted that logistical challenges and health risks made donation impractical. He said there were concerns about poor manufacturing standards and unknown chemicals in the manufacturing of the fake goods. But Seepersad countered that, if trademark removal and safety checks were feasible, the items could benefit families struggling to afford school shoes.

“The objective of preserving the claimant’s reputation can be preserved if its identifying marks can be removed,” Seepersad said. “If people can benefit from it, it is something worth considering.”

“I hear you with your concerns. And, of course, even on that level of just ensuring by sample testing that the products will not cause harm, because one doesn’t want to give it out if there’s an issue.

“But if that could be satisfied and arrangements could then be made, even if it is at a slightly higher cost, than destroying it, then the defendant, who has already suffered a financial loss having regard to the importation of these items, which the court has found to be contraband and counterfeit items.

“But just from a social conscience point of view, if there was a way of obliterating the marks, and it may cost the defendant a little more money, and everyone is satisfied that the items will not pose a threat or harm to people, having regard to the chemicals and materials which were used…It may well be that that’s a course of action worth considering.”

Sochan also noted that his client had received requests from charitable organisations. Seepersad urged the parties to use the next 14 days, within which DB Funstyles has to hand over the items, to hold discussions on the various requests.

“They (Nike and Puma) can have a look at who is asking, whether it’s a civil or whatever organisation, and if they’re satisfied, of course, of the bona fides of the request and the genuine need…

“At the end of the day, if these items will not pose a threat to the health and safety and welfare of the users, and the only concern is the protection of the claimants’ reputation, and the marks can be obliterated. It is worth considering if people can benefit from it. Forward those requests so that they can have a look at them, verify the accuracy and the legitimacy of the parties who are making the requests and ascertain whether the needs that are being expressed are valid ones that could provide some measure of assistance and the claimants will decide thereafter how to treat with that request and or the products to determine if there is a way at all to accede to those charitable requests.

“If they ultimately find that it’s difficult for them to do that, then the destruction order would be in place with the cost as has already been identified.” As part of the judge’s order, DB Funstyles has 14 days to deliver all the items for shredding and any associated overtime fees accrued in the process, which is likely to span two days.

On September 8, the judge ruled that DB Funstyles infringed on Nike and Puma’s trademarks pursuant to section 28 of the Trademark Act. This came after the company accepted liability. In their trademark infringement claim, Nike and Puma said the consignments of goods—7,300 pairs of counterfeit slippers with the word “Nike,” its trademark “Swoosh” emblem, the “Jumpman” emblem, and the “Jordan” emblem, as well as 660 pairs of fake Puma slippers with its trademark name and logo—were seized in December 2023. The consignments were assigned to DB Funstyles.

Nike Innovate and Puma SE said an attempt was made to import the fake slippers, and Customs and Excise detained them on reasonable suspicion that they were counterfeit, and the two companies were notified of the seizure.