Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd (Appellant) v Junior Sammy Contractors Ltd (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Awaiting judgment

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2023/0031

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd

Respondent(s)

Junior Sammy Contractors Ltd

Issue

Whether the High Court erred granting the Respondent summary judgment against the Appellant and refusing to grant the Appellant specific disclosure.

Facts

The Respondent claims TT$82,804,219.19 (plus interest) in respect of residential infrastructure work that it carried out for the Appellant. The Respondent was contracted (by a contract dated 4 February 2015 (the "Contract") by the Appellant to carry out construction works of a road, together with related works (the "Works"). The original contractor for the Works was H Lewis Construction Limited ("H Lewis"). H Lewis had been appointed by the Respondent by a contract dated 25th May 2010, which was terminated on 2 April 2014 due to delay in works and failing to comply with notices from the Respondent to correct its performance.The Contract was an amended version of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers Standard Form. The Respondent is claiming payment on the basis of Interim Payment Certificates ("IPCs") which were issued by the engineer on the project, and in respect of which the Respondent issued invoices. The Appellant has contested the Respondent's claim.The Appellant requested voluntary disclosure by the Respondent of documents which the Appellant considered were necessary for its defence and/or that were relevant to the Respondent's claim for payment under the IPCs. The Respondent refused to provide disclosure and the Appellant applied to the High Court for specific disclosure.The Respondent also applied to the High Court for summary judgment. The Appellant sought to contest this on the basis that, amongst other matters, the Respondent is the incorrect claimant because it had absolutely assigned any rights to payment to a third party; and the Respondent had over-certified or recklessly over-claimed in the IPCs. The Respondent also contested the Appellant's contention that the Respondent had acknowledged or admitted the debt by letter in 2015.The Appellant's request for specific disclosure was dismissed by the High Court. The Judge also granted the Respondent summary judgment. The Appellant appealed both decisions to the Court of Appeal ("CA"). The CA dismissed both appeals in a single judgment.