NGC attorneys urge court to keep freeze on SIS

The NGC has already received conditional leave to approach the final appellate court, and the stay on the dismissal order will continue for the next six weeks when Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Justices of Appeal Prakash Moosai and Andre des Vignes will give their decision on NGC’s final leave application as well as the duration of the stay on the dismissal order.

Arguing for the status quo to be maintained, lead counsel for the NGC, Deborah Peake, SC, pleaded for the previously granted freeze orders to remain, said NGC stood to suffer irreparable substantial losses if SIS and its subsidiary company Rain Forests Resorts Limited (RFRL) were allowed to dispose of its assets which are also the subject of a $400 million- dollar arbitration claim over the Beetham Water Recycling Project.

She accused SIS and Rain Forests Resorts Limited (RFRL) of conducting sham transactions in relation to real estate assets (four mortgages and a debenture) to defraud creditors.

She said if the stay was removed, there was a real risk of SIS disposing of its assets and rendering the NGC’s appeal nugatory and academic.

“Property and heavy equipment can be dissipated quickly. There is a real risk SIS would dissipate its assets,” she argued.

Peake also dismissed claims by SIS and RFRL that it was suffering hardship because of the freezing order.

The NGC is seeking to have the Privy Council reinstate its high court claim for damages against SIS over breach of contract relating to the Beetham Water Recycling Project.

Both parties were seeking a resolution of the matter when the issue of the lapse of deadlines in accordance with the CPR rules came up.

Attorneys for RFRL and SIS, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj,SC, and Neal Bisnath, respectively, insisted there was no risk of either company getting rid of their assets.

Bisnath said for over a year after its high court claim was dismissed after the NGC failed to prosecute its claim against their clients an order has been in place freezing the companies’ assets. “As of today, an injunction continues a year after the matter was dismissed. What can be more unjust than that? It is affecting the company adversely,” Bisnath contended, adding that it was also ‘oppressive’ against his clients.

Maharaj further cautioned the judges against usurping the jurisdiction of the Privy Council by granting a stay until the determination of the matter in the London court.

In June, of last year, Justice Joan Charles ordered that the freezing order on the assets of Super Industrial Services Ltd (SIS) be continued, the National Gas Company (NGC).

On December 23 a court order was granted by the High Court in favour of the NGC against SIS which saw assets in the sum of US$180 million being frozen “until the determination of intended arbitration proceedings between NGC and SIS concerning the Beetham Water treatment Project.” Apart from the freeze remaining, the injunction restraining RFRL from disposing of properties mortgaged to it by SIS was also continued.

The NGC appealed and in a majority ruling, Justices of Appeal Rajendra Narine and Judith Jones in January had agreed with SIS’ contention that the judge was not actively managing the case when NGC failed to adhere to the rules in its prosecution of its claim against SIS and RFRL. As a result of their ruling, the NGC’s claim against the two companies was struck out.