THE CLAIMANT’S CASE Sample Clauses
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. The Claimant’s case is supported by two affidavits from ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, a Director of CCML filed February 14, 2023 and May 5, 2023 as well as an affidavit from ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, another Director of CCML filed May 5, 2023. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 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. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ stated that a meeting was held on December 15, 2022 between ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, the attorneys-at-law for CCML and the attorneys-at-law for ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ where the existence of a Settlement Agreement and a stamped Instrument of Transfer were disclosed. The Instrument of Transfer listed ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇’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, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ filed on May 5, 2023, he stated that prior to the December 15, 2022 meeting, he contacted ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ case is that he had completed transporting two loads of sand and was exiting the quarry with his third load when, while descending the hill he applied the brakes but the truck did not slow down. He became fearful for his life, he tried to use all his strength to hold on to the steering wheel of the vehicle in order to prevent it from running off the edge of the road. He tried the hand brakes but to no end; even the emergency braking system failed. He was jerked about and thrown from side to side while he struggled to regain control as the truck ran down the rough, rugged road. The truck eventually came to a stop near the bottom of the hill. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ felt pain in his upper body and right arm and shoulder radiating across his chest.
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. [8] The Claimant's case can be summarised as follows: -
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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, to assist him. In his statement of case he also mentioned that his friend, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 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, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 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, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 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 ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 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 ▇▇...
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 ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ contends that the case is based on the wrongful termination of the contract dated the 25th November 2015. The said contract provided specific grounds for termination. Notwithstanding the contract, Readymix issued a Notice of Termination dated the 23rd June 2015 which purported to terminate the contract. The reason contained in the Notice, the management restructuring exercise, was not one specified under the terms of the contract. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ asserts that this was not a valid basis for termination and Readymix’s pleaded defence was an afterthought and plain untruths to support a non-existent defence in light of a belated realization that the justification contained in the letter of termination was invalid.
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. The Claimant in his Claim Form and Particulars of Claim avers that on the 4th February 2004, the defendant “carelessly, recklessly and maliciously printed, published and edited, in the Daily Gleaner of that date an Article which was libelous of him”. The article which was, as noted above, captioned “Blythe’s Firm Sued” contained the words complained of and which have already been set out. It was alleged in the Claim Form that the words were published “knowing the said statements to be false and without belief in its truth and knowing that the same would be to the detriment of the Claimant’s reputation in his professional duties as a medical doctor, a Member of Parliament and Vice President of the People’s National Party in particular and the public in general”.
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.