5 days ago
10
Senior Reporter
A Laventille-based contracting company will have a long wait for the Court of Appeal to weigh in on contentious litigation over a move by the Government to terminate over 300 Community-based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme Company (CEPEP) contractors, including itself.
Delivering a ruling yesterday, Appellate Judge Nolan Bereaux rejected an application from Eastman Enterprise Limited for its appeal to be heard urgently during the Judiciary’s ongoing annual vacation period.
Justice Bereaux’s decision means that the appeal will be considered by the Appeal Court in the usual manner and as such, it is expected to be listed for hearing later this year.
CEPEP highlighted the outcome of the hearing in a media release yesterday, as it noted the company had failed to justify the need for an urgent hearing of its appeal.
“The court said even if it did take the plight of the workers into account, there were no cogent circumstances that would allow the appeal to be heard over, above, and in priority to other matters before the court in which other persons have been patiently waiting in queue,” CEPEP said.
“He (Justice Bereaux) stated that very cogent facts and circumstances were needed and there was no proper basis in Eastman’s evidence to hear the matter urgently,” it added.
In a media release responding to CEPEP, however, the People’s National Movement (PNM), which is assisting Eastman with the case, claimed CEPEP wrongly claimed the entire appeal had been dismissed in its release. It also noted that CEPEP’s request for legal costs for the urgency application was rejected, as Justice Bereaux found such could be dealt with at the end of the substantive appeal.
During the hearing, the company sought to rely on the evidence of former employee Cindy-Ann Purcell, a mother of four from Beetham Gardens.
In her affidavit, Purcell claimed she and her children, including her 25-year-old son, who is studying in the United States on an athletics scholarship, were severely affected by the terminations.
Responding to the submissions, CEPEP’s lawyer Anand Ramlogan, SC, claimed his client was sympathetic to Purcell’s plight, but he questioned the role of her children’s father. He also questioned the company’s inability to find other work for its employees, as he noted it had received separate contracts from other State companies.
He noted that Purcell and her colleagues’ plight was no different to other CEPEP workers who were terminated in 2017 and were forced to seek alternative employment.
In the appeal, the company’s lawyers, led by Larry Lalla, SC, are contending that Justice Margaret Mohammed erred earlier this month, when she stayed its case and referred allegations over the recent three-year renewal of the contractors to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
It is claiming that Justice Mohammed was wrong to rule that it was required to pursue mediation and arbitration before litigation based on a clause of its contract.
It also suggested that she should have considered its application for an injunction staying the terminations and blocking the appointment of replacement contractors.
It stated that the judge also made preliminary findings in relation to whether Cabinet approval was required for the renewals without all the evidence in relation to such being before her and tested through cross-examination.
It also noted that the judge was wrong to refer the case to DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, as he (Gaspard) does not have any power of investigation.
Through the appeal, the company is seeking a series of declarations over the judge’s decision and an order compelling her to consider its still-pending injunction application.
Eastman filed the lawsuit after the contracts were terminated by the United National Congress-led coalition Government in late June.
Eastman contended that CEPE acted unlawfully, as it was required to immediately pay for one month’s service as it sought to terminate, based on Clause 15 of the contract, without giving notice.
The clause allows CEPEP to terminate by giving 30 days’ notice or making a payment in lieu of notice, if the company fails to meet its contractual obligations or performance assessments conducted by CEPEP officials.
It alleged that while it was promised that the payment would be processed and dispensed when CEPEP notified the company of the termination, the payment should have been made together with the termination letter.
Responding to the lawsuit, CEPEP raised the issue of the lack of Cabinet approval for the extensions.
CEPEP put forward an affidavit from ongoing CEO Keith Eddy, who claimed former chairman Joel Edwards gave assurances to him and the company’s board that cabinet had approved the renewals before they approved such.
Edwards provided an affidavit in response, on Eastman’s behalf, in which he claimed he never gave such assurances and sought to correct a board note over the renewals that indicated that it was being done with the blessing of the then-cabinet.
He later claimed that the extensions were done based on a Cabinet minute from 2017, which he claimed gave the State company the autonomy to decide on such without Cabinet input. Eddy then filed another affidavit challenging Edwards’ claims.
Eddy further contended that before Edwards gave the alleged assurance, he (Eddy) was personally pressured by former rural development and local government minister Faris Al-Rawi into facilitating the renewals of the contracts.
CEPEP has also threatened Edwards with legal action over his role in facilitating the renewals.
Eddy has also threatened to sue Al-Rawi for defamation over statements he made in relation to his conduct in the case.
English (US) ·