New Grant man jailed for disobeying court order for damages

Justice Frank Seepersad. -

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.