The Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco airport project has entered its second phase. That is the phase where persons who were implicated by the evidence of witnesses are summoned to appear to challenge the evidence by cross examination, direct evidence or by calling supporting witnesses.

Monday
Major players
summoned

MAJOR companies involved in the Piarco Airport Development Project were summoned to appear before the Commission of Inquiry during the week. Birk Hillman Consultants (BHC), project consultants and designers of the airport were summoned to appear on Tuesday. Calmaquip Engineering, which got the contract for CP13 to supply specialty equipment was summoned for Wednesday and Fidelity Finance and Maritime General Insurance was summoned to appear on Thursday. Maritime provided the bonds for Northern Construction Ltd (NCL).
NCL was summoned to appear on Monday but failed to show up.

Tuesday
BHC a no show — and
tempers flare

BIRK Hillman Consultants (BHC) on Tuesday failed to show at the Inquiry although lawyers for the company sent a fax to the Commission acknowledging receipt of its summons. It is believed that BHC will not take part in the Inquiry, which is expected to end in July. When BHC was called no one appeared on its behalf. Lead attorney for the Commission Theodore Guerra, SC informed the Commission that the company was served a summons which BHC’s attorney had acknowledged receipt through a fax letter to the Commission. Guerra was stopped from disclosing the contents of the fax by Chairman Clinton Bernard. At the start of the inquiry last year attorney Bruce Procope QC appeared for BHC. Witnesses who implicated BHC during their evidence were told to be on “stand by” for Wednesday, in case BHC has a change of heart. Also on Tuesday Dennis John, the former Airports Authority Security Manager returned to the witness stand to be questioned by Guerra in a session which caused tempers to flare and John to again be warned about the $2,000 fine under the Commission of Inquiry Act for not fully answering questions. John also complained that the Commissioners had frowned on his way of speaking. But Bernard explained that was because he had been rude to Guerra, and impertinent to the Chair. John maintained that he never saw the contract awarded to the Firearms Training Institute and the only reason he signed claims approving money to the Institute was because he was acting on the instructions of his boss, Rampersad Hadaway.

Wednesday
Calmaquip/BHC given 14 days to respond

BIRK Hillman Consultants (BHC) and Calmaquip Engineering have been given 14 days to provide written responses to evidence given at the Inquiry. Both firms were summoned to appear before the inquiry on Wednesday and on Tuesday. BHC’s attorney is Bruce Procope, QC while Calmaquip is represented by attorneys Russell Martineau, SC and Avory Sinanan. Although the companies’ officials failed to appear in person,  letters to the Commission from their attorneys indicated their willingness to respond to the evidence by written statements.

Thursday
Maritime complains
of prejudice

THE ATTORNEY for Maritime General Insurance Company Limited and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Limited, accused the Commission on Thursday of being prejudicial and unfair.  Vernon De Lima also insisted that the companies, which are “under the gun in the criminal matter,” will not get a fair trial. The companies are charged jointly with several other persons for criminal offences relating to the Piarco project. De Lima voiced his accusations to the Commissioners when he appeared on behalf of the companies at Thursday’s sitting, when the companies were summoned to appear. In the midst of  De Lima’s complaints, Chairman Clinton Bernard pounded his gavel several times in an effort to stop him. Bernard repeatedly asked De Lima if he was prepared to question the witnesses who had implicated the companies, and told De Lima “we will not allow you to say that”. He also told De Lima nothing at the inquiry affected the criminal matters.

Friday
In camera session

THE 164th sitting of the Inquiry on Friday lasted just over an hour but no evidence was taken. The session was held “in camera” where former NIPDEC Chairman Edward Bayley’s attorneys made submissions. Bayley is represented by attorneys Sonny Maharaj SC and Stuart Young. The inquiry is expected to wrap up in early July. So far 66 persons have given evidence.

CARLTON GREER is a retired contractor/ welder. He was born in Trinidad, but has since set up his home in Tobago. Today, Greer is a very happy man having fought the “system” and won. He took on a major company in Trinidad and although he lost in the Trinidad High Court and Court of Appeal, Greer succeeded before the Privy Council in a judgment delivered on Labour Day. “I feel satisfied. This was a matter of principle, although it was a matter of small money, I decided to fight the system,” Greer told Sunday Newsday during an interview last Thursday. Greer said a lot of people tried to dissuade him, saying he could not beat the company. “They said I did not stand a chance and that nothing will come out of it. But, I hope this will give the small man the courage to fight for justice.” Greer bought a JCB backhoe in 1978 from Alstons Engineering Sales and Services Limited. In April 1982, Greer took the backhoe back to Alstons for repair because the gearbox was making an unaccustomed noise. Alstons repaired the backhoe at a cost of $20,342.27. But Greer found that the backhoe was still defective. After several inspections by Alstons, it was returned to the company in May 1983 for further repair. When Greer went to collect it on January 16, 1984, an impasse developed because Greer refused to accept it unless he was allowed to test-drive it. Alstons refused to allow him to do so unless he paid the outstanding sum of $20,342.27 for the first repairs. There was a charge of $11,646.57 for further repairs. Greer refused to pay this sum and so went away empty-handed.

In May 1984, Greer began proceedings for damages for breach of contract and negligence. It was not until October 4, 1995 that the matter came up for hearing before Madame Justice Annestine Sealey. She gave judgment on November 29, 1995 in which she ruled that Greer should pay the bill for the first repairs, along with interests and costs. “So, I appealed,” Greer added. The matter was heard before then Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, Justice Lionel Jones, and Justice Anthony Lucky. In a judgment delivered on February 22, 2001, the Appeal Court found that the judgment of the High Court was wrong, but ordered that Greer be paid $5,000 as nominal damages for the loss of use of his backhoe. “I was not happy with that, so I instructed my attorneys to take the matter to the Privy Council. I was confident that I would succeed in the Privy Council, although I must admit it was going to be a costly affair,” the appellant added. Where was the money coming from? Greer remembered the words of his wife who was really the motivating factor behind the court proceedings. “She wanted me to fight this matter to get justice, if it meant spending our last cent. So, I did it.” Greer said he travelled to England with his attorney Stanley Marcus SC in April for the appeal. The case, according to Greer, was over within four hours. Alstons was represented by attorney Elton Prescott. In this instance, Greer claimed substantial damages for loss of use of the backhoe. The appeal was heard before Lords Hope, Lloyd, Rodger along with Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Phillip Olton. In the judgment delivered by Sir Andrew, the Law Lords noted that Greer had been deprived of his backhoe for well over 11 years.

The Lords found that Greer should be compensated for the loss of use of his backhoe. He was also awarded interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of detention of the backhoe to the date of the first judgment. The Lords expressed their appreciation of the excellent submissions of both Marcus and Prescott during the appeal. This case must now be referred to the Master of the High Court for assessment. This is now listed for September 22. Alstons have also been ordered to pay Greer’s costs which will be substantially high. Asked why he fought the company for what was considered a meagre $20,000, Greer responded, “it was too much advantage on the small man. The laws are there for the rich and those who have money. I knew at the time I was coming up against a big company, but I decided I must go after what I considered was an injustice being brought upon me.” After his victory in England, Greer feels that Trinidad and Tobago should retain the Privy Council as the final court of appeal. “We are not ready as yet for the Caribbean Court of Justice. Down here in the Caribbean, is a Boys’ Club, everybody knows everybody.” Greer was sure he wanted to fight the system. “I never forgot the attitude of the sales representative during the days of real problems. He made me take the matter further. I will never forget that,” he added.