Junior Sammy’s $3.5m court levy delayed

Wednesday, September 11, 2019 - 05:45

A con­tract­ing com­pa­ny was yes­ter­day forced to tem­porar­i­ly with­draw its levy against Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors Lim­it­ed over an un­paid $3.5 mil­lion court judge­ment. 

Court mar­shals, po­lice of­fi­cers and lawyers rep­re­sent­ing West­ern Gen­er­al Con­trac­tors Ser­vices Lim­it­ed went to Ju­nior Sam­my’s com­pound in Clax­ton Bay, around 6 am yes­ter­day morn­ing, to ex­e­cute the judge­ment and be­gin the process of seiz­ing items to re­cov­er the debt. 


How­ev­er be­fore they could en­ter, the Reg­is­trar of the Supreme Court in­struct­ed them to put the process on hold as Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors had ap­plied for a stay of the judge­ment pend­ing an ap­peal. 

The Reg­is­trar al­so gave the com­pa­ny un­til No­vem­ber 8 to have its stay ap­pli­ca­tion de­ter­mined. 

In its claim be­fore Jus­tice Ron­nie Boodoos­ingh, West­ern Gen­er­al Con­trac­tors claimed that it was owed $3.25 mil­lion for sub-con­tract­ing work it had per­formed for Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors be­tween De­cem­ber 2013 and Feb­ru­ary 2015. 

West­ern Gen­er­al Con­trac­tors claimed that Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors had no com­plaints about its per­for­mance but on­ly paid for a por­tion of the work.  

In its de­fence, Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors chal­lenged the sub­con­trac­tor’s claims as it al­leged that its work was per­formed im­prop­er­ly and in an un­work­man­like man­ner. 

It al­so claimed that West­ern Gen­er­al Con­trac­tors did not fol­low its in­ter­nal pay­ment pol­i­cy when it sub­mit­ted in­voic­es for pay­ments and that some of the in­voic­es were in­flat­ed.

 Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors al­so filed a counter-claim in which it al­leged that it suf­fered al­most $3 mil­lion in loss­es as it was forced to re-do the sub­con­trac­tor’s work as it did not meet the ap­proval of its clients. 

In his 46-page judge­ment, de­liv­ered in March, Jus­tice Boodoos­ingh up­held the sub­con­trac­tor’s case as he not­ed that Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors had pre­vi­ous­ly ho­n­oured the in­voic­es, which it claimed had been im­prop­er­ly sub­mit­ted.

“This went against the very process ad­vanced by the de­fen­dants that the in­voic­es had to be ver­i­fied by send­ing to the head of­fice, then re­turn­ing to the site for ver­i­fi­ca­tion,” Boodoos­ingh said. 

He al­so ques­tioned Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors’ claim over the qual­i­ty of the work, as he point­ed out that it was on­ly raised in the law­suit. 

“I found it dif­fi­cult to be­lieve that the de­fen­dant would be dis­sat­is­fied with the work be­ing done to the ex­tent they al­lege, have to re-do work be­cause of the sub-stan­dard work and this would not gen­er­ate one writ­ten com­plaint. Sure­ly the de­fen­dants would have been con­cerned about their own rep­u­ta­tion with their clients,” Boodoos­ingh said. 

In ad­di­tion to or­der­ing Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors to ho­n­our the debt, Boodoos­ingh al­so or­dered it to pay five per cent in­ter­est on the sum from the date when the sub­con­trac­tor filed its law­suit. 

West­ern Gen­er­al Con­trac­tors is be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Alvin Pariags­ingh and Ganesh Sa­roop, while Jagdeo Singh, Ka­ri­na Singh, and De­siree Sankar are rep­re­sent­ing Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors.