THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. The Claimant’s case is supported by two affidavits from Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, a Director of CCML filed February 14, 2023 and May 5, 2023 as well as an affidavit from Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx, another Director of CCML filed May 5, 2023. Xx. Xxxxxx in her Affidavit filed February 14, 2023, asserted that Clause 9 of the 1998 agreement grants CCML the ROFR and the right of pre-emption concerning any proposed transfer. This prohibits any transfer of the property except where CCML has been given the opportunity to re-purchase the subject property. She further asserted that in or around late October 2022, there were rumours that Xxxxxx Xxxx was seizing ownership of the subject property and that there was some transaction in progress for the change of ownership. CCML’s attorneys-at- law were instructed to lodge a Caveat on November 18, 2022 prohibiting registration of any change in the proprietorship or of any dealing in respect of the property. Xx. Xxxxxx stated that a meeting was held on December 15, 2022 between Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxx, the attorneys-at-law for CCML and the attorneys-at-law for Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxx where the existence of a Settlement Agreement and a stamped Instrument of Transfer were disclosed. The Instrument of Transfer listed Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxx Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx as transferees and an intention to proceed to lodge the Transfer was expressed. Despite being informed of the ROFR, the 4th to 6th Defendants attended upon the property and informed the staff that they are the new owners of the property. She further stated that by letter dated January 4, 2023, CCML’s attorney-at-law wrote to Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxx’s attorneys-at-law putting them on notice of the intention to commence proceedings to enforce the ROFR and CCML’s readiness to purchase the property at the assessed value of Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Million Jamaican Dollars ($225,000,000.00) however there were no responses. In her May 5, 2023 affidavit, Xx. Xxxxxx stated that despite the injunction being granted by the Court on March 21, 2023, the 4th to 6th Defendants have continued to have possession of the property and their agents attended upon the subject property and have commenced work to remove the kitchen cupboards. In the sole affidavit of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxx filed on May 5, 2023, he stated that prior to the December 15, 2022 meeting, he contacted Xx. Xxxx Xxxxxxxx regarding rumours he heard that Stocks and Securities Limited was in financial trouble and that the subject property may be at risk of sale...
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [1] The Claimant commenced his employment in Kuala Lumpur as Senior Manager in the Operation Department pursuant to the contract of employment dated 01.03.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. The claimant contends that during the course of performing its work as operator, the defendants obstructed and interfered with its operation of the quarry when the lease was terminated.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [2] The Claimant is alleging that on or about the 21st day of December, 2010, the parties entered into a rental agreement titled “Concession Agreement” which allowed the Defendant to occupy the premises known as Lots 4 and 5 [Shop # 5, AMC Plaza] Congrieve Park Pen, Port Xxxxxxxxx, Portmore, in the parish of St. Xxxxxxxxx being part of parent title registered at Volume 1041 Folio 309. The Claimant further alleges that $100,000.00 per month was agreed for payment of rent and this was paid in full by the Defendant between January 1, 2011 to March 1, 2016. From that sum, the Defendants were to pay a certain amount to the owner(s) of Lot 5 on behalf of the Claimant, as the Claimant had a rental agreement with the said owner(s) of Lot 5. $40,000.00 was given and the rent per month was at $160,000.00. The payment to the owner(s) of Lot 5 was also increased and the Defendant was still required to pay it. This rental period ran from April 1, 2016 to July 1, 2018. During this period the Defendant only paid the sum of $50,000.00 to the owner(s) of Lot 5 and owes to the Claimant the sum of $917,400.00 for the period October 21, 2017 to July 1, 2018. [4] By way of a notice to the Defendant, the Claimant again increased the rental effective the 1st day of August, 2018 using the revenue based formula to arrive at a rent of $242,000.00. As at the 1st day of September, 2018 the Defendant owed the Claimant rent in the sum of $384,000.00. During this rental period, the Defendant was paying rent to the owner(s) of Lot 5. The total rental owed to the Claimant by the Defendant now stands at $1,301,400.00. [5] On or about the 20th day of November, 2017, the Claimant caused a Notice to Quit to be served on the Defendant for recovery of possession and a Letter of Demand for non-payment of rent to be delivered to the Defendant. Since this was done, the Claimant alleges that the Defendant has refused and/or neglected to make any further rental payment. Due to the lack of rental payment by the Defendant, the Claimant states that it has been difficult to meet monthly and annual obligations associated with the business. The Claimant needs the premises for its own use and occupation because it wishes to embark on a business venture using the premises. [6] On the 16th day of February, 2015, the Claimant successfully registered the business name ‘Jungle Fyah’ in accordance with the Registration of Business Names Act and this was renewed on the 18th day of February, 2018. The Claimant all...
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. The claimant alleges that the sum of $4,730,538.16 is payable by the defendant pursuant to a contract under which the claimant agreed to provide main repairs, the installation of stop cocks, curb valves and metres upon request by the defendant for a period of two years commencing 1 August 2014.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [9] The Claimant contends that there was a valid assignment of a debt owed by the Defendant to Sure in the sum of $1,657,000.00. It further contends that the signature of Xxx. Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of the Defendant constituted an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay that debt of $1,657,000.00 and the Defendant is liable to pay this sum notwithstanding any issues which may have arisen as to the ownership of the Drink or the underlying Consignment Agreement by which the Defendant became liable to Sure in the first place.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. On 7 September 2011 the parties entered into an agreement (the First Agreement) under which the claimant agreed to perform works described as the Design and Construction of Infrastructure for 800 Housing Units at the Egypt Village Chaguanas Housing Development for the sum of $240,670,583.00.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. The Claimant relied on the evidence of Xxx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx- Bartholemew and Xx. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx contained in their sworn Affidavits and Witness Statements. Xx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, a Retail Collections officer, Special Loans Unit employed with the Claimant at its Independence Square branch deposed that as of 17th November, 2010, the Defendant’s delinquent credit card account was transferred to her and that in or around January 2011 she left messages for the Defendant to contact her concerning her account. She testified that the Defendant contacted her and informed her that she received a cheque and had intentions of depositing the cheque in order to maintain the credit card account . Xx. Xxxxx then informed the Defendant that the credit card account was blocked and that she should consider approaching Bankers for financing to liquidate the debt in full or reassign her salary to the debt so that the debt could be restructured.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [21] It is the claimant’s case that throughout his tenure with the defendant, he did not have a good understanding of the English language. He deposed that while Xxxxxxx was not his first language, he could read basic words written in the English language and had a fair understanding of spoken English. However, he would often require assistance in reading and understanding more advanced words and relied on his close friend, Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx, to assist him. In his statement of case he also mentioned that his friend, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, also assisted him. [22] Specifically, as it relates to the material events of the instant claim, the claimant stated that when he received the termination letter dated 6 September 2013, he opened it and attempted to read. However, he did not understand the contents of the letter due to his limited understanding of written English. Accordingly, he stated that upon returning home from work that same day, he showed the letter to his friend, Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx, who read and explained the contents of it to him. [23] The claimant stated that further to that, he sought the assistance of his other friend, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, to write to the defendant the aforementioned letter dated 7 September 2013, which requested further particulars as to the compensation/separation package that the defendant was offering upon the claimant’s termination of employment and the timing for execution of the same. [24] Moreover, it was the foundation of the claimant’s case that shortly after he received confirmation of the nature of his compensation/separation package, with the assistance of his friend Xx. Xxxxxxx, he further undertook a review of his earnings and salaries to calculate the total sum of monies that would be owing to him by the defendant upon his last day of work. According to the claimant, it was during that exercise, that he realised that since he started working for the defendant in 2001, income tax was being improperly deducted from his salary as “P.A.Y.E”, that is, “pay as you earn”. The claimant stated that to be the first time that he understood what the term “P.A.Y.E” as seen on his payslip meant. Prior to that time, the claimant alleged that he was of the belief that “P.A.Y.E” was a savings plan for employees and that he would be entitled to claim the contributions made to the savings plan together with interest at the end of his employment. [25] Having come to that realisation the claimant stated that, again with the assistance of Xx...
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [ 10 ] The Claimant in her pleadings contended that she was not redundant for the following reasons:
(a) That a true redundancy in law can only happen when the functions of the position (not the role) cease or diminish to a great extent;
(b) That the Claimant’s functions as Global Director – Go To Market were taken over by Ms. Xxxxxxx who was the wife of the CEO and at the material time was a part time employee of the Company, and by another employee of the Company known as Xxxxxxx, who was junior to the Claimant;
(c) That the alleged business shift focusing on Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines beginning January 2019 as stated in the Notice of Retrenchment was untruthful as this shift took effect from July 2018;
(d) That the Claimant was persuaded by the CEO to take on the new role of Global Director – Go To Market as late as April 2018 (some eight months before being issued the Notice of Retrenchment in December 2018)
(e) That the Claimant could have been easily reverted to her role as General Manager – Indochina, a position she was holding up until April 2018, the functions of which was taken over by the COO, Xxxx Xxxxxxx. [ 11 ] The Claimant further contended that the Company’s decision to dismiss her was motivated by mala fide and was an unfair labour practice. [ 12 ] The Claimant did not call any other witnesses to give evidence at the trial. Only the Claimant gave evidence at the trial in support of her case against the Company.
