Justice Persaud informed yesterday that the matter will be before the court on April 21 at 9.30 am, but he declined to comment further on the matter.
Responding to an article, headlined ‘GPL $58M claims against Buddy’s dismissed for want of prosecution,’ published in Wednesday’s edition of Stabroek News, the power company stated that the order to dismiss the claims had been recalled. GPL, the press release had said, is “making every effort to ensure that all monies owed to it are paid in full.”
Stabroek News was unable to confirm the date the order to dismiss the suits was recalled but was reliably informed that this was done by the court on Wednesday. Defence attorney Robin Hunte declined to respond when questioned by this newspaper yesterday about when the order to dismiss the cases was recalled. Hunte only said “no comment.”
Meanwhile, efforts made to contact GPL’s attorney and Corporate Secretary were futile. GPL, thus far, has not stated when the order was recalled and explained how both cases advanced to the stage of dismissal. The cases were heard in part by Justice James Bovell-Drakes and Justice Persaud, with the latter dismissing both suits on March 18, 2009 for want of prosecution. Between March 18 and Tuesday there was no disclosure of the order being recalled.
In a press statement on Wednesday, the company said on February18, 2009 when the case was called in the Commercial Court Shivraj’s attorney “confirmed to the court that [the defendant] had agreed, in principle, to settle GPL’s claim.” It said the case was then adjourned to March 18, 2009 “for terms of settlement to be prepared by the parties and [submitted] to the court.”
According to GPL, “the matter did not appear on the commercial list” on March 18, 2009 but the Buddy’s defence attorney, who presented himself before the court, allegedly failed to inform the court that GPL had already delivered draft terms of settlement. Further, GPL said that the defence attorney failed to indicate that he had not formally responded to the terms of settlement, “and the court therefore dismissed the claim.”
The court was informed of GPL’s position sometime later and “recalled its order,” the press statement had said, adding that the action is therefore still extant and has been fixed to continue before Justice Persaud.
Stabroek News viewed documentation for both claims where the last action recorded was the dismissal of both suits last month. Records of Action No.444/08-CD (where GPL claims just over $50 million) and Action No.445/08-CD (where GPL claims just over $8 million) show that on March 18, the defence attorney had appeared in the Commercial Court before Justice Persaud and the matters were dismissed for want of prosecution.
In one statement of claim, GPL said Buddy’s owed $50,131,881, being the balance of an amount due and owing for electricity supplied up to January 2008, in addition to interest and associated court costs. At the time of the filing of the suit in April 2008, GPL said, it had been supplying Buddy’s International with electricity from the start of its operations in February 2007, for which it received a single payment of $3,459,547, despite repeated demands for outstanding debt. As a result, GPL billed Shivraj for $39, 417,217, which represented the total energy and demand charges due to GPL up to January 2008 and $10,714,664 constituting a non-refundable capital contribution. Shivraj, however, did not pay the bill. A separate court action filed in May, 2008 claimed $8,893,290 for electricity supplied.
