Tim Prudhoe, instructed by K. Persaud Maraj & Co (of Trinidad) appeared for the successful respondent, LCMS Ltd.
Case summary
Issue
Should the Court of Appeal (“CA”) have reversed the trial judge’s finding of primary fact on the basis that: (i) there was no evidence to support the judge’s conclusions; and/or (ii) the judge’s conclusions were based on a misunderstanding of the evidence; and/or (iii) no reasonable judge could have reached the judge’s conclusions?
Facts
The Respondent brought proceedings claiming that the Appellant approached the Respondent for a loan in the sum of TT$1,500,000, which the Appellant agreed to repay within one year. The Respondent alleged that it agreed to and issued the loan via three payments made by cheques. The Respondent alleged that the agreement was verbal and was not reduced to writing. The Respondent alleged that the loan was never repaid.
By its defence, the Appellant denied the Respondent’s account. The Appellant contended that he had loaned the sum of TT$1,864,000.00 to a third party, Nu Image Shuttle Services Ltd (“Nu Image”) and/or Mr Keith Subiah. The Appellant contended that Nu Image and/or Mr Subiah failed to repay the monies owed. The Appellant contended that Nu Image and/or Mr Subiah indicated to the Appellant that the Respondent owed Nu Image/Mr Subiah a substantial amount of money and that Nu Image/Mr Subiah would arrange for the Appellant to be repaid directly by the Respondent.
The High Court gave judgment for the Respondent. The Appellant appealed, arguing that the CA should overturn the trial judge’s findings of primary fact. By a majority, the CA found that this was not a case in which it would be suitable to interfere with the trial judge’s findings.
View the case on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) website here.
Read the Judgment here.
Share:
