2 weeks ago
10
FLASHBACK: Smoke billows after a gas explosion at the El Pecos restaurant in Maraval in 2015. FILE PHOTO - IN WHAT is the first of many such cases expected to follow, a series of criminal complaints filed by the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) over alleged breaches of the Occupational Safety and Health Act arising from the 2015 gas explosion at El Pecos Restaurant in Maraval has been withdrawn, bringing to an end a decade-long legal battle in the Industrial Court.
Industrial Court President Heather Seale along with members Azeem Mohammed and Enid Zephyrine, granted OSHA’s application to withdraw the complaints against North Plant LPG Co-operative Society Ltd and the National Petroleum Marketing Company Ltd (NP) on January 9.
The complaints stemmed from the supply of liquefied petroleum gas to the El Pecos restaurant, where a deadly explosion occurred in 2015.
Seale briefly acknowledged that the court expects similar applications in numerous other cases affected by a 2025 Privy Council decision. “We expect that we will be back here with numerous parties soon,” she said.
LIMITATION PERIOD
OSHA’s action against North Plant and NP was initiated on October 28, 2016, and amended on October 31, 2017 – well outside the six-month limitation period prescribed by the OSH Act. The El Pecos gas explosion occurred on February 5, 2015, and resulted in one death and multiple injuries. OSHA alleged that both companies breached several provisions of the Act.
On November 12, 2025, attorneys Kelvin Ramkissoon and Nizam Saladeen, representing North Plant, applied to have the complaints struck out on the basis that they were filed out of time, contrary to section 93 of the OSH Act.
In their submissions, North Plant’s attorneys relied on rulings of both the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, which confirmed that section 93 requires criminal complaints to be filed within six months of the date the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of an OSH inspector. They argued that the complaints were lodged almost two years after the explosion, despite OSH inspectors being present at the Royal Palm Plaza—where El Pecos was located—on the day of the incident to conduct investigations.
In a landmark judgment delivered in September 2025, the Privy Council upheld a Court of Appeal decision confirming that the six-month limitation period in section 93 applies to all criminal offences under the Act, including both safety and health offences and summary offences, prosecuted before the Industrial Court and the magistrates’ courts.
The ruling resolved a long-standing legal dispute over whether the two-year limitation period in section 97B could apply to OSHA-initiated prosecutions. The Privy Council ruled that the longer period applies only to civil claims brought by individuals—such as employees seeking damages for breaches of statutory duty—and not to criminal complaints.
400 OSH CASES STAYED
The issue arose from an earlier OSHA prosecution against the University of the West Indies, which was filed more than six months but less than two years after the alleged breach. Although the Industrial Court initially allowed that case to proceed based on earlier authority, both the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council rejected that interpretation, holding that OSHA must file criminal complaints within six months of an inspector becoming aware of the alleged offence.
The Privy Council’s ruling was expected to have far-reaching consequences. At the opening of the Industrial Court’s 2025-2026 law term, Seale disclosed that approximately 400 OSH complaints had been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
While the decision significantly narrowed the timeframe for OSHA-led prosecutions, the court emphasised that the six-month period runs from the date an inspector gains knowledge of the alleged breach, not from the date the breach occurred. The two-year limitation period remains applicable to civil proceedings brought by individuals.
In its judgment, the Privy Council said it was “in no doubt” that section 97B creates a two-year limitation for civil proceedings only and does not apply to criminal offences under the Act. It further clarified that nothing in the legislation suggests the word “complaint” is confined to summary offences; rather, it applies to the initiation of all criminal prosecutions under the OSH Act.
Several civil lawsuits arising from the 2015 explosion remain before the High Court. These include a claim by the brother of the restaurant’s accountant, John Soo Ping Chow, who died at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami from burn injuries sustained in the blast. Other matters involve compensation claims by injured victims and recovery actions by insurers seeking to recoup payouts made to neighbouring businesses damaged by the explosion.
In December, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling ordering North Plant to compensate an employee injured in the incident. In a unanimous decision, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar agreed with a judgment by Justice James Aboud, dismissing North Plant’s appeal against an award of $160,000 in general damages to Gregory Maicoo, a lorry man who suffered burns during an LPG delivery to the restaurant.
The appeal challenged a March 4, 2022, decision by then High Court judge Ricky Rahim, who found that North Plant had breached its duty of care to Maicoo. Maicoo was injured when an explosion and fire erupted in a rear corridor of Royal Palm Plaza as gas was being transferred from a North Plant delivery truck to the restaurant’s storage tanks. Evidence showed that leaked gas accumulated in the enclosed passageway, ignited, and caused burns to his face, scalp and hands.
North Plant argued that it had adequate safety systems, training and equipment in place and that the cause of the explosion had not been proven. Those arguments were rejected at every level.
In separate proceedings in 2020 involving North Plant and Continental Corporation, the owner of the property where the restaurant was located, High Court judge Avason Quinlan-Williams found North Plant negligent and liable for damage to the building. She awarded nominal damages of $600,000. However, in 2024, the Court of Appeal reduced that award to $50,000, ruling that the higher figure exceeded the range contemplated for nominal damages in Trinidad and Tobago.
Farees Hosein represented NP, while Patricia Cross appeared for the OSH Agency.
Similar complaints have been filed by the OSH Agency against Land Marine Construction Services (LMCS), Paria Fuel Trading Company, and three of Paria’s executive managers, arising out of the 2022 diving tragedy. Those complaints were filed in the Industrial Court, with parallel proceedings filed in the magistrates’ court. The latter comes up in April when deputy chief magistrate Brian Dabideen is expected to rule on a limitation point raised by attorneys for LMCS.
English (US) ·