Latest Cases

Sentence – Suspended sentence. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that total sentences of 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for religiously aggravated intentional harassment and assault by beating, had not been unduly lenient. The recorder had exercised his discretion to suspend the sentences in a way that he was entitled to have done. 

Guarantee – Bank guarantee. The Technology and Construction Court considered the claimant oil company's application for summary judgment against the defendant bank (Barclays) on a claim for payment under the guarantee. The guarantee had been issued as security for a company's performance of its obligations to the claimant under a contract for work on an oil field. The court ruled that it was not a pre-requisite to the validity of the claimant's demand that the claimant had to make a statement that no amendment had been made to the contract impacting the timely performance of the works under the contract. Such a declaration was irrelevant to Barclays' obligation under the guarantee. 

Solicitor – Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a finding that two solicitors had been guilty of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust in a mortgage fraud. The honesty of those solicitors was to have been assessed as against what they had believed the facts to have been, and the judge had not made findings on all of that knowledge or belief. Further, he had failed to deal with what was, potentially, a good defence. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Commercial Court granted declarations in favour of the claimant insured, ruling, among other things, that a claim for indemnity insurance had been first made within the relevant policy period. If it had not, but, rather, had been made by letter dated 2 April 2013, it was covered by the second excess policy by virtue of an extension clause and the defendant insurers were not entitled to decline cover by virtue of a clause in the primary policy. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants claim in negligence in respect of the deceased police officer shot in the course of duty by an armed assailant dangerous assassin had to fail as the decision of the superintendent in charge of the manhunt operation not to issue a warning was a decision which fell within the scope of the rule of public policy that the police did not owe a private law duty of care. 

Contract – Breach. The Queen's Bench Division held in relation to or monies due and unpaid in respect of the sale of five consignments of rice as evidenced by the invoices held that the claimant was entitled to be paid but reduced by the amount due by various credits in the defendant's favour. 

Constitutional law – Separation of powers. The Privy Council held that the retrospective repeal of a statutory limitation period for criminal prosecutions in Trinidad and Tobago had been constitutionally valid, in particular, it had not breached the principle of the separation of powers, the rule of law or due process. Further, there had been no abuse of process in the appellants' continued prosecution, and the Director of Public Prosecutions had not been in breach of the duties of impartiality and objectivity by the continued prosecution of the appellants. 

Prison – Discipline. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant serving young offender's challenge to the defendant Independent Adjudicator's ruling that the defence of duress was not available to his disciplinary proceedings for the unauthorised possession of alcohol. The principles underlying the general distinction between criminal and disciplinary offences told strongly in favour of treating the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, SI 2000/3371, and the Prison Rules 1999, SI 1999/278, as separate non-criminal disciplinary codes for the purpose of the application of the common law defence of duress. 

Building contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court made three preliminary rulings concerning limitation in a case involving defects in the construction of residential properties. It ruled on the time when the cause of action had accrued and held that, on the true construction of clause 2.5.5 of the relevant building contract, there was one single cause of action. The clause did not operate to preclude claims for defects, whether in contract or in tort, from being brought against the defendant after expiry of the relevant warranty period. 

Building – Contract. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant developer's CPR Pt 8 claim for declaratory relief, held that the defendant building contractor had had no contractual right to have made or be paid in respect of an application for a further interim payment (or any subsequent application thereafter), in circumstances where the application had been made after the period covered by an agreed schedule governing the making of interim applications and payments.