‘Forum shopping’ allegation denied

These allegations have been vehemently denied by Maharaj’s lead counsel Anand Ramlogan, SC, who said it was ‘preposterous and ridiculous’ to suggest there was anything untoward in the filing of the high court actions which challenged the implementation of the property tax and the composition of the JLSC.

Both cases were presided over by Justice Frank Seepersad, who granted injunctions in favour of the former politician. These orders have since been overturned by the appeal court. The coincidence of the same judge hearing the same claimant’s case over a matter of weeks have raised eyebrows, however, the procedure for the assignment of cases to judge has been clarified by the Judiciary in a statement on Thursday.

On May 25, six days after Justice Seepersad granted the first injunction in the property tax case, the attorney for the Chief State Solicitor Department, wrote to Supreme Court Registrar Jade Rodriguez questioning how the case came to be assigned to Seepersad. The Registrar provided answers to the queries on June 5, the day before the appeal court heard the property tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Valuations and the Attorney General.

In her response, Rodriguez said Maharaj’s judicial review application was first filed at the Registry of the Supreme Court sub-registry in San Fernando on May 18 at 3.18 pm - the same day Finance Minister Colm Imbert announced an extension to the deadline for citizens to file their document.

Maharaj’s claim was given a case number - CV2017-01837 - and was docketed to Justice Robin Mohammed. Rodriguez said the next day at 8.56 am, a notice of withdrawal was filed. Maharaj has said he gave these instructions to his attorneys since he needed to reconsider his case following the minister’s announcement of an extension.

CASE RE-FILED “From an administrative standpoint, it made better sense to discontinue and re-file the claim with the necessary changes,” Maharaj said.

Rodriguez said a new ex-parte application was filed a few minutes earlier and this was given case number CV2017- 01839 and docketed to Seepersad.

She explained that cases when filed in the civil court office are assigned at random to a judge selected by the computer automated docketing system. The Registrar added at the time of filing, no oral or written request was made by Maharaj’s attorneys but the attorneys asked for a hearing that day.

She provided an explanation on the process involved in filing a judicial review application.

“The filing of an application for leave for judicial review is customarily treated with some urgency wherein the counter clerk enquires from the attorney’s clerk as to whether there is any urgency as to the date of hearing.

This information is then communicated by the counter clerk to the listing unit. “I am informed that this procedure was followed on the morning of the May 19, 2017, when CV20101839 was filed and the request was made orally by the attorneys’ clerk for the matter to be heard on the same day.

This information was communicated to the listing unit,” she said.

In her eight page response, Rodriguez noted the judge’s Judicial Support Officer (JSO) was emailed with the notice and at approximately 9.37 am, the file was collected and the JSO Tracey Headley was instructed by Seepersad to arrange a court and to contact Maharaj’s attorneys.

This was done. Seepersad commenced hearing at 11.30 am at the San Fernando High Court, in open court.

The order staying the implementation of the property tax was granted at 6 pm.

Rodriguez also said that attorneys for the Commissioner of Valuations were sent an email at 2.07 pm.

Told that attorneys for the State were informed by court staff that no Registrar was present when they made frantic efforts to ascertain whether an ex parte application was being heard, Rodriguez said although she and the assistant registrars were attending a seminar hosted by the Judicial Education Institute of the Judiciary, they were all available via telephone to deal with any urgent applications and were on call to deal with Maharaj’s matter.

She said at approximately 5.20 pm upon receiving notification that the case was still ongoing in the San Fernando Court, assistant Registrar Priscilla Rampersad proceeded to the San Fernando court and signed the judge’s order at 7 pm. She also noted that the assistant Registrar did not place the penal clause on any of the five office copies of the judge’s order which were requested by the attorney.

SPECTRE OF ‘UNC JUDGES’ In a statement, Maharaj said it had come to his attention that there was a politically motivated attack on Seepersad in light of his ruling in the property tax case and the composition if the JLSC.

He cited previous perceived attacks by the People’s National Movement which criticised certain judges in high profile cases and were labelled ‘UNC judges.’ “My case against the JLSC was filed and I was advised by the court registry that it was assigned to Seepersad. I was told that this was a random assignment. What was I supposed to do? It should be noted as well that the first judge who was assigned to the property tax case was Justice Robin Mohammed who was the trial judge in Mr Ramlogan’s defamation case against Mr Jack Warner and awarded $1 million to Mr Ramlogan,” he said.