Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj maintains SIS injunction struck out

Wednesday, June 8, 2016 - 20:00

Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj maintains that according to law, the injunction that the court awarded to NGC in its matter with SIS, was automatically struck out.

The following is a statement from the former Attorney General.

"The claim filed by NGC against SIS is struck out by operation of the Civil Proceedings Rules (1998) as amended in 2011 because:

(1) A statement of case was filed by NGC on the 25th January, 2016. The First and Second Defendants filed and served their respective defences on the 22nd February, 2016.

(2) Under Rule 27.3 (b) of the Civil Proceeding Rules, 1998 ("CPR"), the High Court is required to give Notice of a Case Management Conference within 14 days as stated in the Rules as follow:

"14 days of the filing of the last defence, where there are two or more defendants".

(3) In this case, the High Court was therefore required to give Notice of the Case Management Conference by the 7th March. 2016. The Court did not give any such notice and no date was set for a case management conference.

(4) The CPR requires that if the Court fails to give notice of a case management conference within the 14 days, the Claimant is required under Part 27.3 (3) (b) to: "apply for date to be fixed for a case management conference."

SEE ALSO: NGC denies media reports; SIS injunction stands

(5) The Claimant did not so apply and the claim was therefore automatically struck out according to Part 27.3 (4) as amended in 2011 of the CPR which states: "If the Claimant does not so apply. the claim shall be automatically struck out. "

(6) The claim was therefore by operation of the CPR automatically struck out on the 22nd March, 2016, which is fourteen days after the 7th March, 2016.

(7) Since the claim was automatically struck out on the 22nd March, 2016, NGC had three (3) months pursuant to Rule 27.3 (5) of the CPR (as amended) from the date of the service of the defences, that is, the 22nd February, 2016, to apply for relief from the sanction that the claim was automatically struck out under Part 27.3(4). Three (3) months from the 22nd February, 2016 would be the 22nd May, 2016. This is the only remedy which the CPR gave to NGC to apply to the Court for relief from the sanction of the claim being automatically struck out.

(8) The contents of CPR 27.3(5) (as amended) are crystal clear. It states as follows: "The claimant may apply for relief within 3 months from the date of the service of the defence from the sanction imposed by paragraph"  

I wish to make it clear that I am not the Attorneys at Law representing SIS. I am representing several Companies which are not owned by SIS and are not subsidiaries of SIS. However, notwithstanding that fact, these Companies and their workers were affected by the freezing Order which was used to prevent these Companies from doing their businesses properly. As a result, the jobs of approximately 800 workers were in jeopardy.

I received the documents from the workers of these Companies which show the correspondence which passed between SIS's lawyers, NGC's lawyers and the Registry of the Court. Based on the contents of those letters I looked at the Rules of Court and it is clear to me that the claim is struck out. Consequently, the freezing order which was granted in support of the claim was also automatically struck out. In law when a claim is struck out it is a dead claim and all the proceedings in relation to the claim are dead.

I am enclosing the relevant Rules (Parts 27.3(1) to (5)) for the benefit of members of the media and by extension the public at large to show the basis on which the striking out of the claim took place.

I wish to emphasize that the original Rule at Part 27.3(1) to (5) of 1998 was amended by revoking those Rules and substituted these Rules in the year 2011. These 2011 Rules therefore are the Rules which are effective in law. Any dead claim and dead freezing order can only be resurrected if the Rules provide for same and if there is such a timeframe for such a resurrection to take place, it must take place within that timeframe otherwise no resurrection of the claim can take place."

FOR MORE TOP STORIES: http://www.cnc3.co.tt/latest-news