THE DEFENCE. 8. The first defendant has denied the claimant’s allegation of negligence against it and has, in the alternative, pleaded contributory negligence. It contends that the claimant was under an implied duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and judgment in the exercise of his duties and was aware of the risks and dangers that his employment as a security guard entailed. He was negligent for the following reasons:
THE DEFENCE. [12] The Defendant, by its Amended Defence filed on 20th September 2010, denied that that letter of offer dated 8th December 2000 created a tenancy or indeed any contract between the parties in that the essential particulars of a lease to create a tenancy had not been agreed upon by the parties in that:
THE DEFENCE. 8. The Defendant avers that it is a provider of risk management services with a duty to preserve the financial viability of a medical fund ("the Fund") and does so via the administration and management of the Fund for the benefit of its members.
THE DEFENCE. 4. The defendant consented to liability but challenged the case on quantum, putting her to strict proof of her pleaded physical injuries and losses that flowed therefrom. From upfront, the defendant challenged the medical reports attached to the statement of case and raised the issue of nexus and causation respecting the findings in these reports and the accident. Further, the defendant put the claimant to strict proof of her special damages, rigorously contesting her loss of earnings claim and/or diminution in earning capacity. By its amended defence, the defendant advanced a strong case in opposition to the claimant’s with mitigation and causation as central issues. By its case, therefore, the defendant delinked her injuries from the trauma and stated that she was suffering from a chronic degenerative process in her cervical and lumbar spine, which existed before the fall. It was also its pleaded case that the claimant had undergone previous surgical treatment for an old injury. In effect, the defence was built around denials of injuries linked to any fresh trauma, a challenge to the nexus and causation, a claim of previously existing injuries, prior surgical intervention and an allegation that the claimant’s case was contrived, spurious and exaggerated.
THE DEFENCE. 6.1 Sellers provided a Witness Statement from their Company Director.
THE DEFENCE. 5. The Defendant’s case was that all times the Claimant agreed to extend the date for completion, the necessity for which arose, as a result of her continuous requests for variations of the said works and for additional works. He denied that his works were defective. He said at all times he carried out the works with due care and skill and in a workmanlike manner.
THE DEFENCE. [26] The Defendant pleaded that a Letter of Offer of accommodation at Xxxxxxxx 00X, Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx was sent to Messrs. Xxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx relative to their application for a factory shell at this site. A draft lease was attached to that Letter of Offer. The Defendant also asserted that there was a lease agreement evidenced in writing by an exchange of documents1(the said draft lease). [27] While the Defendant admitted that the Claimant paid insurance premiums for the period 1996-2010, such sums being recoverable as rent, the Defendant asserted that it had always been a term of the said draft lease 2 contained in the draft lease which accompanied the Letter of Acceptance of the Claimant’s Application for tenancy that: The landlord covenants with the Tenant that this insurance will be for the full cost of reinstatement of the leased premises including (without) limitation debris removal, demolition and site clearance and the obtaining of all planning and statutory approvals.
THE DEFENCE. 9. The defendant denied that it owes the sum of $190,378.19 and averred that the clocking cards and the submission of invoices were a precondition for payment. Consequently, in the defendant’s calculation it owes for November 27, 2016 to the beginning of August 2017 in the amount of $127,619.02, it having received no clocking cards for the months of August and September 2017.
THE DEFENCE. [11] The Defendant denied the Claimant’s plea that throughout the history of his employment with the Defendant from 1988 to 2003, the terms and conditions of his employment did not provide for Notice to be given by the employer. The Defendant asserted that in its handbook introduced in 2008, the Defendant stipulated that it was entitled to terminate the employment of any monthly paid worker by giving one month’s notice in writing4. [12] The Defendant also denied treating the Claimant unfairly or demoting him. By way of explanation it was asserted that in or about 2013 it effected a general reorganization of its Management Structure not only in Trinidad and Tobago but its other Regional branches with the result that all Managers and Heads of Department were required to report to a Director. In the case of the Claimant, he 4 Para 3 of the Defence was required to report to the newly appointed Director of IT, Mr. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx. The said Xxxxxxxx was appointed to be the overall head of the IT Department at the much higher level of a Director and therefore became the direct Supervisor of the Claimant. [13] The Defendant stated further, that the Claimant fell short in meeting the performance standards set by his employer who assessed his work standard as mediocre. It was alleged that the Claimant was resentful of the fact that he had been placed under the supervision of a qualified IT professional who was able to detect the Xxxxxxxx’s failures, criticise them and demand that he improve his performance. [14] The Defendant denied further that it was in repudiatory breach of the Claimant’s contract of employment. It was asserted that while in receipt of the Claimant’s six month Notice of constructive dismissal, said Notice was rejected on the ground that the Claimant was not lawfully entitled thereto; further, it was not in the Defendant’s interest to leave the Claimant working in its highly sensitive IT department for six months in the circumstances where he believed that he had been mistreated and constructively dismissed.
THE DEFENCE. [7] The 2nd Defendant has denied that either it or its servant Xx Xxxxxx was negligent. Instead, it contends that the Claimant’s negligence caused the accidents, in that she failed to notice the presence of the pedestrian, failed to heed the instructions of Xx Xxxxxx to steer the bus away from the pedestrian and, she resisted the physical intervention of Xx Xxxxxx to avoid the collision. At paragraph 6 of the 2nd Defendant’s defence, the particulars of the Claimant’s negligence are set out as follows:
