Dear Editor,
Robin Singh does it again. He has now realized the ‘unlimited’ of his straw man ‘unlimited insurance’ is for the unlimited parent company guarantee (PCG), just as Justice Kissoon said.
Section 14.1 of the permit, which the operators/co-venturers have already signed, says the permit holder is liable for all costs. Section 14.2a is about insurance, which we know is not unlimited. Section 14.2b is about parent company undertaking for liabilities under this same permit, which section 14.1 says is for all costs. What does Mr Singh not understand here?
We can indeed agree that Justice Kissoon inferred ‘unlimited’ from ‘all’. It was necessary for the learned judge to distinguish it from the limited liability of commercial insurance, which Mr Singh himself does not seem to realize has been dealt with separately in 14.2a. The courts can debate the use of the term ‘unlimited’, but all costs must be indemnified, and operators must put it in writing. That should be enough. I do not like the term unlimited, because only God has unlimited resources. But applied here, it should cover all costs for as long as the operators are in business. There may be strategies, like declaring bankruptcy, and hiding assets in other companies, to evade such possible liabilities, and the learned Judge may have that in mind, but that is for the courts to decide.
Yours faithfully,
Alfred Bhulai
