Bread company advised – kiss and make up

Although Hamid’s writ to sue the company was thrown out by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal because he had filed his documents out of the time limit specified under the Workmen Compensation Act (WCA), a recent Privy Council judgment in another matter, gave him a reprieve.

In spite of losing twice, Hamid’s attorney Yaseen Ahmed, still decided to fight the matter all the way to the Privy Council.

When the matter was called yesterday before justices of appeal Roger Hamel Smith , Wendell Kangaloo and Paula Mae Weekes, Ahmed sought conditional leave of the court to petition the Judicial Committee (the Board) of the Privy Council.

Noting the facts of the case, and the Privy Council’s ruling in the case of Ancil Allsop and Petrotrin, Hamel-Smith strongly recommended to both sides that in light of that case they should settle the matter. The board, in the Allsop case, dealt with the one year limitation issue, and payment of compensation as calculated under the Act.

In Hamid’s case, he agreed that had he filed out of the time, but questioned the two payments he received from the company as adequate compensation, and sued for negligence. Further, Hamid’s attorney questioned the calculation used by the company to come up with the sums they had paid out. The board made the point that the start of the one year must only begin after the final payment under the WCA. On February 16, 1998, Hamid was paid $4, 100 and on September 28, 1998, he was paid $6,970.

The company said these sums represented workmen compensation payments under the Act.

Hamid, who was in charge of the boiler at the company’s Lange Park, Chaguanas, main bakery, was climbing a ladder to the boiler when he fell and severely injured his shoulder on September 6, 1997. Hamid’s service with the company was terminated about a year and a half later.

The company was represented by attorney Charlene Simon Thompson.