WARNER LOSES PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL Jack Warner has lost an appeal before the Privy Council on a procedural issue involving his challenge against a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against him. The matter involved a lawsuit filed by Real Time Systems Ltd, which is owned by Krishna Lalla, a United National Congress (UNC) financier, against three companies owned by Warner. Lalla’s company claimed that in October and November 2007, it provided Warner, through three companies—Joao Havelenge Centre of Excellence, Renraw Investments, and CCAM and Company—with a series of loans. According to the lawsuit, the alleged unpaid loans totalled $26.5 million. It was allegedly paid through the issuance of five cheques. Lalla’s company, Real Time, sent a pre-action protocol letter to Warner’s companies, dated March 17, 2010, demanding repayment of the first of the series of loans, which totalled $1.5 million. Before putting in its defence, Warner’s company, Centre of Excellence, through its attorneys, wrote on April 1, 2010, requesting particulars of the loan, namely whether the agreement was oral or in writing, when it was made and who were the parties. Real Time’s (Lalla’s) response was to issue proceedings on April 15, 2010. Warner made an application to the court to strike out the case. Warner’s company, Centre of Excellence, alleged the $1.5 million had been a gift made pursuant to conversations between Warner and Lalla, and that Lalla had indicated his desire to make such a gift. The Centre (Warner) applied on August 10, 2010, to have the proceedings filed by Real Time struck out as an abuse of the process. Judge Devindra Rampersad struck out the statement of case by Real Time Systems Ltd, contending that he could not force that company to provide the particulars requested by the Centre of Excellence. Following the ruling, a procedural appeal was filed by Real Time. But Appeal Court judges Peter Jamadhar, Nolan Bereaux and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon reversed Judge Rampersad’s decision to strike out the statement of case. They found the action premature and found the judge had the inherent power to order particulars to be given by Real Time. The Appeal Court referred the matter back to Judge Rampersad for reconsideration of an appropriate order. Warner then challenged the decision of the Appeal Court to send the claim back to the High Court judge, to consider making an order for additional information in the case. Noting that the Centre of Excellence was not in the present case applying for information, but was applying to strike out the case, the Privy Council said: “There is no reason why the court, faced with an application to strike out, should not conclude that the justice of the particular case militates against this nuclear option, and that the appropriate course is to order the claimant (Real Time) to supply further details, or to serve an amended statement of case, including such details, within a further specified period.” The Council also noted: “Whatever the background, the Centre’s case that there were large unexplained gifts fails to give any account of it as much as Real Time’s case that they were loans. Now that Real Time has offered to provide details, the focus is in any event likely to shift to its compliance with that offer.” The Privy Council ruled that the Court of Appeal was “clearly right” in the decision it reached and dismissed Warner’s appeal accordingly.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:03:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015