The ruling has effectively set aside a decision by the Chief Justice (ag) to rule in the case which has dragged on for almost a year. This decision potentially means that hundreds of CLICO (Guyana) investors and policyholders may have to wait even longer before they can recover their monies.
Stabroek News was reliably informed that the acting Chief Justice was not aware of Justice Holder’s order until late yesterday afternoon. The order was made after Justice Holder heard a final round of arguments from attorneys Roysdale Forde on behalf of the insurance company and Senior Counsel, Ashton Chase for the judicial manager.
In a press release issued late yesterday, Forde’s office said the ruling by Justice Holder has barred any further hearing of the petition to have CLICO wound up until the constitutional writ is determined. CLICO is seeking a number of declarations in the writ including that there was a denial of a fair hearing and that the filing of the petition was contrary to law.
The CLICO drama continues to unfold in the High Court nearly a year since the local company came crashing down. Chief Justice Ian Chang was set to rule in the matter on Christmas Eve after months of legal arguments, but Forde managed to secure an interim order from Justice Holder to stay the proceedings.
It was also on Christmas Eve when CLICO filed a motion calling on Justice Chang to recuse himself from sitting in the case citing what it called his predisposition against the company. CLICO claimed that the Chief Justice abdicated his duties in the hearing by failing to convene a sitting of the Full Court to adjudicate a previous application it had made for a stay of the proceedings.
Justice Chang took to the bench hours after the scheduled time for his ruling in December to say he had no choice but to hold his hand. He said his decision was ready to be handed down, and he hoped it would be at the earliest opportunity. The Chief Justice could not proceed as planned with his ruling because of Justice Holder’s interim order. Justice Chang told the court on that occasion that Justice Holder has to be given time to make a decision on the application before him, adding, “I am going to give him that time.”
In the ex-parte application before Justice Holder, CLICO said its constitutional rights had been breached because Justice Chang failed to grant it a fair hearing. CLICO argued that both the application for winding-up and the order placing CLICO under judicial management were made without notice to the company.
CLICO is arguing that the matter before Justice Chang has not yet been heard and determined and that the proceedings are ongoing. This, the company said, means the Chief Justice cannot proceed with a ruling when matters are still before him. “…that should the proceedings continue and the matter be heard and determined against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would suffer substantial harm, hardship and prejudice by an Order of winding-up,” CLICO said in its court documents.
The company said also that it fears an order for winding-up will result in the likely disposal of its assets. Further, CLICO said that it has no remedy and cannot be compensated in damages against the judicial manager given that the office carries with it immunity from any action.
In February this year CLICO’s Judicial Manager Maria van Beek had secured an order from the court placing CLICO (Guyana) under judicial management prior to the possible winding up of the company. Chief Justice Chang ordered, after reading the petition by van Beek and the affidavit in support, that leave be granted to van Beek to present a petition under Section 67 (1) of the Insurance Act 1998.
