the republic of trinidad and tobago in the...

of 34

THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(SUB REGISTRY) SAN FERNANDO

Claim No: CV 2014 – 00513

Between

KENNY TOUSSAINT

Claimant

And

TIGER TANKS TRINIDAD UNLIMITED

Defendant

BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO LIMITED

Co-Defendant

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PETER A. RAJKUMAR

APPEARANCES

Mr. Lennox Sanguinette instructed by Mr. Rampersad for the Claimant

Mr. Abdel Mohammed for the Defendant

of 34

Table of Contents Page

Background 3

Issues 3

Findings and Conclusion 3

Disposition and Orders 5

Analysis and Reasoning 5

Liability 5

Evidence – Kenny Toussaint 5

Checklist/Logbook 5

Anthony Superville 6

Dennis Latiff 6

Findings 8

Contract of Employment 10

Holding valve/air pressure gauge, etc 11

Buzzer 11

Slow loss of pressure 12

Emergency Brake 14

Conclusion 14

Quantum 15


Dr. Narine’ Medical Report 16

Sacralisation 16

Operation 16

General Damages 17

Judicial Trends 21

Findings 21

Pain and suffering 26

Handicap in the labour market 26

Loss of pecuniary prospects 27

Alternative employment 28

Earning capacity 30

Permanent partial disability 30

Special Damages 31


Disposition and Orders 34

of 34

JUDGEMENT

BACKGROUND

1. The Claimant, a driver, claims against the first defendant, his employer, and owner of the

truck TCJ 5286 which he was driving, damages for personal injuries as a result of a motor

vehicle accident on the 4th day of March 2010 involving alleged brake failure of that truck.

2. The Claimant contends that he had just begun his shift at a jobsite in Mayaro. Before

starting the truck he checked, on the gauges, the air pressure available for the brakes. After

loading it with 60 barrels of drilling mud the Claimant drove it up a slope and brought the

vehicle to a standstill when the truck began rolling backwards. He immediately tried to apply

brakes which however failed. The truck continued rolling backwards, eventually colliding with a

water pump, and causing the claimant injury, loss, and damage.

3. The Defendant contends that the Claimant, inter alia, in breach of the Defendant’s

policies and procedures failed to conduct a daily inspection before entering the truck. If he had

the Claimant would have “identified” that the holding valve on the air-brake system had failed

before proceeding to operate TCJ 5286.

ISSUES

4.

a. Whether the defendant was liable in negligence for failing to provide a vehicle with a

functional braking system.

b. Whether the claimant is liable wholly or in part for the accident and his own injury by

failing to perform necessary braking checks and follow proper established procedures,

including those mandated by his contract of employment.

c. What is the appropriate measure of damages.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

5. I find that the claimant was not contributorily negligent in the circumstances of this case.

He did all that was reasonably required of him, both as an experienced truck driver and by reason

of 34

of his contract of employment, in inspecting the gauges and basic mechanisms of the truck

before operating it and embarking on the journey up the slope.

6. I find that on a balance of probabilities the claimant was not provided with a check list on

the day of the accident. It is not the case that a checklist was provided to him which he failed to

complete.

7. I find further:

a. that in any event the check list was not a substitute for basic inspection of the vehicle and in

particular for paying attention to the gauges on the instrument panel,

b. that the gauges on the instrument panel would have shown if the pressure had not built up

sufficiently. The claimant in all likelihood would have paid attention to those gauges not least

because they were prominently located on the dashboard in front of him.

Though the truck would not have moved if the pressure were below 4-6 bars there was a range of

pressures between 6 and 7-8 where it would have moved, even sluggishly, even if the hydraulic

pressure had not yet built up sufficiently to ensure adequate braking capability.

8. The defendant is liable to the claimant for providing a truck which contained a defective

holding valve which defect could not be reasonably observed or detected by the claimant and

which defect did not manifest itself either:

a.by a reading on the instrument panel at the material times of starting or operating the truck, or

b. by the operating performance of the truck, for example sluggishness, or

c. by a detectable effect on brake performance when the truck was started, or

d. when stopped initially to be loaded before being driven to the top of the slope.

9. The inadequacy of available brake capability first became observable when the truck,

fully loaded, stopped on a steep slope. By that time it was too late for the claimant to do

anything about it. Engaging the emergency brake would in the circumstances be a counsel of

perfection. His admitted failure to apply or engage the handbrake or emergency brake, in the

very limited time available to him to respond to the sudden emergency situation in which he

found himself, cannot be characterized as negligence or failing to take steps for his own safety.

of 34

10. I do not however accept that the injuries sustained by the claimant or their effects are

quite as severe as contended.

DISPOSITION AND ORDERS

11.

i. The defendant is to pay to the claimant general damages assessed in the sum of

$90,000.00.

ii. Interest is to run thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of service of the

claim form to the date of judgement.

iii. The defendant is to pay to the claimant special damages in the sum of $5,000.00.

iv. Interest is to run on the sum of $4000.00 at the rate of 3% per annum from November

10th 2011 to the date of judgement.

v. The defendant is to pay to the claimant costs on the basis prescribed by the Civil

Proceedings Rules for a claim in the total of the above amounts.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING

LIABILITY

Evidence - Kenny Toussaint

12. The Claimant started the vacuum truck, checked the valves and gauges on the truck to

confirm adequacy of brake pressure and then proceeded down to the job site with the truck,

collected 60 barrels of drilling mud and then proceeded up a steep slope to leave the job site. At

the top of the hill, when the truck was stopped, it began to roll backwards.

Checklist/Logbook

13. From the Claimant’s evidence there was no checklist on that night for the truck.

However he conducted his own checks of the valves and gauges of the truck. On the evidence I

have no doubt whatsoever that repairs of holding valves were not within the claimant’s job

description.

14. The checks themselves were basic. In relation to the brakes they involved ticking off on a

list that the emergency brake, hand brake, foot brakes and master cylinder had been checked. In

of 34

fact there was no master cylinder on the truck but the evidence is that this box was usually ticked

nonetheless.

15. A checklist, whether made available or not, or whether completed or not, does not

advance the position. Even if there were no checklist the issue is still whether he did the

necessary checks. If a check list was made available to the claimant but not filled out the issue

remains whether it can reasonably be inferred from this absence that he did not carry out checks.

16. In either scenario however it is more likely than not that the checks in that checklist

would have been carried out almost automatically by a driver as experienced as the claimant.

17. In relation to the main check of the pressure, given that it simply involved glancing at

very large gauges in front of him, it would have entailed very little time or effort.

18. In any event the further question must be considered, whether carrying out those checks

could have resulted in the detection of the failure of the holding valve.

Anthony Superville

19. This witness was of very little help to the Court.

Dennis Latiff

20. He avers in respect of the Claimant that “he did not conduct the daily inspection of the

truck registration number TCJ 5286 and if he had done so he would have identified that the

holding valve on the air brake system had failed. This failure would have been identified if the

Claimant had checked the air pressure gauge before driving truck registration number TCJ 5286

which is standard operating procedure for this type of equipment.”(Paragraph 8 witness

statement)

21. It is clear that the cause of brake failure being alleged by the defendant is failure of the

holding valve, and that the claimant’s alleged negligence was in failing to identify that it had

failed by not checking the air pressure gauge.

of 34

22. It is an agreed fact from the pleadings in this matter that the holding valve on the air

braking system did in fact fail. (Paragraph 4 of the Defence)

23. The evidence of Mr. Latiff was helpful in establishing precisely what was the negligence

of the claimant that was being alleged.

24. The following can be extracted from his responses, accepting that Mr. Latiff was not

established to be an expert witness, and that some of the matters he addressed were contradicted

by the evidence of the claimant himself.

i. The brakes failed because he alleged that the claimant hadn’t allowed sufficient time for the

air pressure to build up to the required level of 8-9 bars necessary for full braking capacity and

efficiency.

ii. The truck could move if the pressure had not built up to 8-9. It was therefore possible that the

truck could be moved while not having available to it the full pressure necessary for full braking

efficiency.

iii. The claimant was at fault in not completing necessary preliminary checks as revealed by his

omission to fill out a pre-job check list in accordance with standard operating procedure.

iv. If the claimant had not been negligent he would, in addition to filling out the check list, have

also been monitoring the air pressure gauges on his dash board to observe either:-

a. whether the pressure had built up sufficiently to enable full braking capacity to be available, or

b. whether there was a loss of pressure occurring

v. A buzzer could have sounded in the event of a sudden loss of pressure, though this depended

on how suddenly the pressure was being lost and how fast the truck was moving.

vi. Any slow loss of pressure was unlikely given the very short distance that the truck had

travelled. That being so any loss of pressure – if pressure had been allowed to build up to the

of 34

required level – would have had to be sudden, and that would have triggered the buzzer. He

suggests therefore that as slow loss of pressure was unlikely, and sudden loss of pressure

would have triggered a buzzer, alerting the claimant, that failure to build up the pressure in the

first instance was most likely.

vii. the emergency brake is not the same thing as the handbrake.

viii. it is not the case – contradicting the claimant – that the emergency brake, or the hand

brake, would have failed once the main brake failed. Although these are also operated

hydraulically they are served by different lines and therefore provided separate braking capacity

for the truck.

25. It is therefore necessary to elicit the facts from the evidence on a balance of probabilities

and make findings thereon, given that both Mr. Latiff and the claimant provided straightforward

testimony concerning the accident, without attempting to mislead, even where answers would not

have served their own interests.

FINDINGS

26.

a. The pressure in the truck’s braking system needed to have reached 8-9 bars to be

effective in stopping the fully loaded truck.

b. Emergency brake

It is admitted by the claimant that he did not seek to use the emergency brake.

The Claimant stated that the emergency brake and the hand brake are the “same

thing”.

Mr. Latiff says otherwise. Neither claimant nor Mr. Latiff is an independent expert. I

am not satisfied that they are the same thing but it not necessary to so find as what is

important is the existence of at least one alternative braking system, whatever it is

called. It is not in dispute that there was one and that the claimant did not attempt to

use it in the limited time available to him to react.

of 34

c. Checklist -The failure /omission to fill out the check list does not by itself mean that

the claimant did not check his gauges and ensure that the necessary pressure had been

built up. It is clear from the photographs of those gauges that they are prominent on

the dash board and would be hard to miss. In fact it would be harder to ignore those

gauges than to glance at them. It is more likely than not that the gauge was checked

by the claimant as he said. As an experienced truck driver it would more likely than

not have been part of his routine on start up to check the very prominent gauges.

I accept the evidence of the claimant that there was no check list for him to fill out

that day. Further, the check list is not determinative as to whether he did or did not

check the gauges. He could have checked them without a check list as I find that he in

fact did.

27. Equally even if he had completed a check list this would not be determinative of whether

he had in fact checked, in particular, the air gauges, prior to ascending the slope. The check list

therefore does not advance either party’s case. It is certainly not conclusive against the claimant

and its absence does not establish that he failed to check the gauges.

28. For example, when questioned about the ticks by the “Emergency” and “Master

Cylinder” sections, the Claimant stated, “I ticked it but there is none”. While this suggests that

ticking the boxes may even have become more a matter of routine than a reflection of an actual

check of everything listed on the check list, what was not explored in detail was whether the

claimant was qualified to check the master cylinder, how such a check would have been effected

in practice, and whether there was in fact a master cylinder on the truck. In any event this is of

minimal relevance as it is the holding valve and not the master cylinder which was admitted to

be defective.

29. The issue remains whether there is any check that the claimant was reasonably expected

to conduct, (in the absence of which check he could be alleged to have not taken reasonable steps

for his own safety), on the holding valve, or any system, which would have allowed a defect in

of 34

the holding valve to be detected. That check was examination of the gauges, rather than simply

ticking a checklist. I find that despite no checklist having been completed that day it is more

likely than not that that the gauges were actually examined by the claimant as he contended.

30. The existence of a checklist is not particularly determinative of the issue as to whether

checks on the brake pressure, via inspection of the gauges, were carried out.

31. On a balance of probabilities I find:-

a. that there was no checklist on the date of the accident.

b. that the Claimant as an experienced truck driver of over 10 years, performed the basic

mechanical checks on the truck, and in particular checked the gauges before he commenced

operating the truck, as he claimed.

Contract of Employment

32. The Claimant did all that he could reasonably be expected to do in compliance with his

contract with the Defendant in relation to the maintenance and operation of the truck. Failure to

complete the check list, without more, would not in and of itself be an indication of either breach

of contract of employment or negligence on his part. Further, it is clear that the claimant was not

a mechanic and that his duties could not extend to physical inspection or repair of the holding

valve.

33. If he were negligent at all therefore it would have to be in relation to not monitoring the

gauges sufficiently or at all so as to detect the failure of the braking system to build up

sufficient pressure to ensure adequate braking capability for a fully loaded truck on a steep slope,

or any loss of such pressure after it had been built up.

Holding Valve/Air Pressure Gauge /Buzzer/Emergency Brake

34. The evidence of the Claimant is that he started the truck, saw the air pressure gauge reach

between “8 - 9” and drove the truck. He stated that the truck would not be able to move if the

gauge read 6 or below. He claimed that a buzzer would also go off. If the gauge were to go to

6.5 the truck would be able to move but it would be “lethargic”. For the brakes to be working

of 34

properly the gauges are between 8 to 9 and the braking system would be fully functional to stop

the truck.

35. I am satisfied from the evidence of both claimant and Mr. Latiff that the truck could

move even if the pressure had not built up to 8-9, and that the truck could therefore be moved

without having full braking capacity.

36. The truck after being started had to have 60 barrels of drilling mud pumped into it for

transfer offsite. There is no evidence as to how long that process would have taken. (The

claimant says it was “not filling fast”). Mr. Latiff testified that the truck required two to five

minutes after start up for its hydraulic pressure to build up to 8 - 9 bars. Not explored was

whether the time for loading the mud would also have allowed sufficient time for the hydraulic

pressure to have built up to allow effective braking, assuming no leak.

Buzzer

37. I am not satisfied that a buzzer would sound if either a. the pressure had not built up to

more than 6 or b. if the pressure had dropped gradually to below 6. Claimant and Mr. Latiff

described different circumstances in which such buzzer would have sounded. On the evidence it

is conceivable that the pressure could have dropped below 8 - 9 without a buzzer sounding,

depending on how suddenly the pressure dropped, or how fast the truck was being driven. I

accept Mr. Latiff’s evidence in this regard. The non sounding of the buzzer however carries the

matter no further, as no one checked, or at least if they did they did not specifically say they did,

whether the buzzer, (which was supposed to sound in the event of sudden loss of hydraulic

pressure), was in working order.

38. On the facts the possibilities therefore are:

1. (Possibility 1) - the claimant did not allow sufficient time for hydraulic pressure to

build up, authoring his own calamity when he drove it to the top of the hill fully loaded without

sufficient braking capacity to prevent it rolling backwards.

40. I find this to be unlikely given:

of 34

i. the experience of the claimant,

ii. his testimony that he did so which I accept ,(given his forthright testimony, even where

against his interest, that he did not apply the emergency brake),

iii. the fact that the process of loading 60 barrels of mud would have taken some time in itself,

possibly allowing the buildup of hydraulic pressure to a sufficient degree. Though not

conclusive, given the absence of evidence of the time involved, it is one additional factor to

support the inference that at the time that the truck began climbing that slope the hydraulic

pressure had built up sufficiently to permit adequate braking as a. on a balance of probabilities

sufficient time would have elapsed, and b. the claimant would have checked the very prominent

gauges at start up, according to his own testimony.

41. Possibility 2 - the claimant did allow sufficient time to elapse to allow the buildup of

the necessary hydraulic pressure, but that pressure was lost by the malfunction of the holding

valve, either slowly or suddenly, before the truck reached the top of the hill, and the claimant

would have been aware of the loss of pressure if he had been monitoring his gauges, being

negligent in not doing so.

Slow loss of pressure

42. If pressure, having been built up sufficiently, had been lost slowly it is possible that the

claimant may not have noticed, especially if no buzzer had sounded, given that he also had to

drive the truck, facing forward, up a hill, and then stop for the lorry man. If he had not checked

the gauge prior to ascending the slope, (a matter not raised in the defence), this would only have

mattered if pressure was then lost because the holding valve was defective.

43. Weighing against this scenario is the contention by Mr. Latiff that the distance that the

truck would have had to travel was quite short. Consequently the time involved would have been

quite short, weighing against a gradual release of pressure. He suggests therefore that this

indicates that the pressure had not been allowed to build up sufficiently in the first place. This

fails to take into account the possibility that after pressure had been allowed to build up

sufficiently, as claimed by the claimant, pressure may have been lost slowly while the truck was

of 34

being filled with mud. This possibility of slow undetected loss of pressure before ascending the

slope, (although it had first reached 8-9 bars) cannot therefore be rejected.

44. iii. Possibility 3 - Sudden loss of pressure

Another possibility is the claimant did allow sufficient time to elapse to allow the buildup of the

necessary hydraulic pressure, but that pressure was lost by the malfunction of the holding valve,

suddenly, before the truck reached the top of the hill. Weighing against this is the fact that no

buzzer sounded. However there is no evidence that anyone specifically checked the buzzer after

the accident to ensure that it was in proper working order. Also Mr. Latiff suggested that the

buzzer may have gone off or not depending on the suddenness of the loss of pressure and the

speed of the truck. The buzzer is therefore not determinative in eliminating this scenario. On a

balance of probabilities, having eliminated driver error in driving the truck without having

allowed sufficient time to build up pressure to 8-9 bars, this is in fact logical.

45. No one testified as to the nature of the holding valve failure. Possible failure referred to

by Mr. Latiff included sticking in position, but there were others. It was accepted by him that the

nature of any physical defect that may have developed in the holding valve would determine the

rate at which pressure was lost. In the absence of the evidence as to the nature of that defect in

the admittedly defective holding valve, sudden failure and loss of pressure, after the claimant

had properly brought the pressure up to the required pressure of 8 - 9 bars, just as he testified,

simply cannot be ruled out.

46. On a balance of probabilities I find that it is more likely than not that this is what

accounted for the claimant’s finding himself in the situation where at the top of the slope due to

no fault of his, his fully loaded truck began to roll backwards without responding to braking

pressure.

47. No one explored the question of why, if the truck were still under its own power,

application of the accelerator to return the truck to the top of the hill and beyond was not

attempted. It may this was not an option as the truck would have had to first stop before

of 34

proceeding onto a main road. No evidence addressed this and it will therefore not be considered

further.

Emergency brake

48. The Claimant explained that if the main braking system was not working the emergency

brake will not work as well. I am not satisfied that this is correct given the evidence of Mr.

Latiff. However I find that it makes little difference as a. the claimant did not attempt to use it,

but b. his failure to use it was excusable in the circumstances and not negligent.

CONCLUSION

49. The fact is that the accident that was described by the claimant reveals that he began

operating a truck which appeared to be functioning normally. His evidence that he carried out

checks was not shaken, and in fact that evidence was delivered forthrightly and emphatically,

even as to matters which he knew might not necessarily support his case. At no point has it been

established that the claimant, whether by act or default, was negligent in failing to ascertain,

before the brakes failed, that they were not functioning properly.

50. Even if he had failed to apply the emergency brake the evidence is that when the truck

began to roll backwards down the steep hill there was very little time to take measures to stop it.

The claimant found himself in an emergency situation and responded as best as he could and as

quickly as he could. He had seconds to react and there was no certainty, even up to this point, as

to whether the emergency brake would have even been capable of stopping the loaded truck at

the top of a hill from sliding back down.

51. The claim that the claimant was somehow contributorily negligent or even wholly

negligent cannot be substantiated. The claimant was driving a truck for which he had up to that

point in time, no reason to believe had a deficient braking system. Any failure to respond, (and

no such failure has been demonstrated), must be considered in the context of the emergency in

which the claimant found himself. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts – 21st ed. para. 8-151

52. I accept:-

of 34

i. that the Claimant did all that a reasonable truck driver in his position and level of

expertise was expected and required to do,

ii. that he was not himself required to physically inspect the holding valve,

iii. that he was entitled to rely on the air gauges for information on the air pressure levels

available for the braking system, and

iv. that he did check these gauges as he claimed.

53. I accept that there is no reason to doubt that the Claimant conducted reasonable checks

when he started the truck, and drove the truck to the bottom of the hill, where he waited a while

to collect 60 barrels of drilling mud, and then proceeded to ascend the hill, as the most relevant

reasonable checks required were simply inspections of the air gauges, which were prominently

displayed on the dash board.

54. I find that the first named Defendant failed to provide a safe system of work, and in

particular ensure that the truck supplied to the Claimant had a functioning braking system, and

specifically a functioning holding valve, and was wholly liable for the accident.

QUANTUM

55. It is necessary therefore to establish:-

a. what injuries the claimant sustained,

b. the effect of those injuries generally, and specifically, the effect of those injuries on his ability

to work and /or ability to earn.

c. whether the claimant should be awarded compensation for the cost of future surgery in the

estimated sum of $50,000.00

d. the quantum of special damages.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

56. The evidence of Dr. Narine that the claimant has sustained injuries to his lower back is

accepted. I also accept the evidence of Dr. Narine that the claimant’s injuries were more likely

than not, the result of trauma, rather than the result of normal aging, given the timing of their

onset.

of 34

57. I am satisfied that the claimant gave generally honest and straightforward testimony. I am

also satisfied that he could do more than it was contended on his behalf that he was capable of

doing, for example in terms of his ability to drive, his ability to work, his current level of pain,

and his intention to undergo recommended surgery.

58. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of shortfall in income since being

terminated by his employer, or handicap in the job market, or unsuitability for work, or inability

to work in alternative employment.

59. I find that the claimant has demonstrated that the recommended surgery is not a priority

for him.

Dr. Narine’s Medical Report dated the 16th April 2013.

60. Dr. Narine advised surgery - a Lumbar Laminectomy with L3- L4, L4- L5 discectomy.

The approximate cost of this surgery was $50,000.00. However no claim for the Cost of Future

Medical Treatment and/or Surgery was pleaded.

Sacralisation

61. This was an incidental finding upon examination, unrelated to any clinical manifestation.

It had no effect upon the claimant’s symptoms or disability or prognosis. Whether or not it is

likely to have been congenital is therefore irrelevant.

Operation

62. The claimed costs of the operation are disallowed for the following reasons:-

a. There was no pleaded claim for this cost such as to allow the cost for it to have been

challenged e.g. on the basis of possible availability at no cost at public hospitals, or

alternatively, so as to inform an offer in this regard.

b. The claimant’s evidence in his witness statement is that though he was advised of the

operation he was scared of complications, and was informed that his pain may not have

been relieved by the surgery. It is therefore not certain that he will undergo the operation

even if a sum is awarded to meet its cost.

of 34

c. He testified that he obtained relief from a massage from a person who rubbed backs.

d. It is accepted that massage/physiotherapy may only relieve symptoms leaving the

underlying condition unchanged. Yet the claimant obtained pain relief from a “rub

doctor” and he never returned despite that person doing a fantastic job of pain relief,

suggesting strongly that his level of pain was not so severe that he felt the need to seek

such relief again.

e. The operation itself was likely to produce a 5 -10 % reduction in level of disability. It had

a 65 % chance of success in a 49 year old man. Its primary purpose was pain relief.

However Dr Narine testified that it is not certain that the operation if performed now

would provide relief and that his condition would need to be re-evaluated.

The likelihood, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant will not undergo the

surgery, while retaining any sum provided for it, is real and cannot be ignored.

63. In relation to matters for which the doctor did not have to rely upon the claimant for

input, and in relation to his expert findings, the court accepts his findings as an expert.

64. In relation to subjective matters reported by the claimant, as to the effects of pain,

suffering and/or symptoms of the Claimant, however, the court is entitled to take into account the

whole of the evidence and assess the consistency of the claimant’s complaints on the level of

pain, with his actions.

GENERAL DAMAGES

COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURY

65. The standard analysis begins with the framework identified in Cornilliac v St. Louis

(1965) 7 WIR 491, by the Honourable Wooding C.J. (as he then was) at page 492 under the

following heads:-

(i) the nature and extent of the injuries sustained;

(ii) the nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability;

(iii) the pain and suffering endured;

(iv) the loss of amenities suffered; and

(v) the effect on pecuniary prospects.

of 34

The nature and extent of the injury

66. Dr. Narine indicated inter alia examination in July 2010 revealed the following.

Interspinous ligament strain;

Left S1 joint strain

Bilateral L5 nerve root irritation;

L4-L5 disc herniation

67. Dr Narine testified that he was advised to continue analgesics pending obtaining an MRI

scan. The claimant was next seen on the 25th March 2013. His complaints of symptoms had

worsened- bilateral lowered extremity pain extending to the calves, left more than right.

68. On examination on the 25th day of March 2013 Dr Narine noted the Claimant’s reported

symptoms worsened but his examination findings were unchanged from July 2010.

69. Dr. Narine stated in his report that in light of the Claimant’s worsening symptoms and

imaging findings, he advised surgery - a Lumbar Laminectomy with L3, L4 and L4-L5

discectomy.

The nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability

70. In paragraph 8 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement the Claimant states that his ability to

drive was affected as his legs would feel numb and he would feel as if there were tiny pins on the

soles of his feet. “My ability to correctly apply pressure to the pedals of my car was reduced”.

He further stated that he would feel spasms in his legs and had great difficulty in extending and

retracting his ankle as (he was able to do) before. At trial however he testified that he was the

driver of a car.

The pain and suffering that had to be endured

71. At paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement he states:

13. I am unsure of the exact medical meaning of these terms however I do know that pain

radiates down the back of my leg to my calf and foot. Also the driving position makes me very

uncomfortable and places pressure on my back and increases my lower back discomfort. When

of 34

moving around I would often have to hire a vehicle only for me, so that I may sit sideways across

the backset so as not to feel pain.

14. It has been almost five (5) years since the accident and I continue to struggle in settling

down to a normal life. I suffer with constant pain in my back and my family life has been severely

affected as a result of my injuries.

72. A court would be extremely reluctant to avoid trivializing the level of pain reported by a

personal injury claimant. The claimant in this case did sustain injury and did report pain. But the

examination of the extent of that pain is necessary for:-

a. determining the necessity of surgery, and

b. assessing whether the claimant is indeed able to continue working at full capacity.

73. The claimant volunteered, in explaining how he was able to return to work after the

accident, despite the alleged pain, that he was able to do so after attending a “rub doctor”. The

effect of that visit was to alleviate the pain he was experiencing to the extent that he was able to

return to work. When asked whether he had ever returned to that person, (whether a massage

therapist or physiotherapist or otherwise is unclear and in any event not relevant) he indicated

that he had not, although he would have been able to reestablish contact with such person

through the person who had first recommended him.

74. Dr. Narine accepted that in so far as he was reporting the alleged level of pain of the

claimant he relied upon the claimant for his own subjective description and explanation. “To

objectively assess pain is really difficult. We go by what the person says.”

75. I note that although the claimant complained of increased pain it is significant that his

clinical findings from 2010 were essentially unchanged in 2013. That being so it is also

significant that the claimant, having experienced relief from that massage, and therefore knowing

that his pain could be addressed, even temporarily, by visiting that person, yet did not again seek

out the services of that person. This strongly suggests that the pain being described by the

claimant is not of such a level that it compelled him to seek relief again from that person. It

matters not whether that person was qualified as a massage therapist or physiotherapist. What is

of 34

significant is that the claimant, believing that he had obtained relief from that person, yet did not

seek out that person again. It strongly suggests that he did not need such relief. It matters not

even whether that relief was psychosomatic or repeatable.

76. The fact that the claimant did not seek to find out whether the pain that he alleges he

continued to experience could have been alleviated by a second visit strongly suggests that he

did not need to find out if it could be alleviated by a second visit, because the pain that he

complained of was not so severe that it required such a visit. I so find.

77. That being so I also find that the surgery recommended by Dr. Narine – for alleviation of

pain:

a. on a balance of probabilities would probably not be undertaken, if even a second visit to a “rub

doctor/ massage therapist, noninvasive as it is, was not considered necessary to address the level

of pain actually being experienced.

b. that surgery has not been demonstrated to have been necessary to deal with the actual level of

pain being experienced by the claimant, in so far as it can be correlated to the actions that he

actually took, as well as those which he declined to take, to alleviate it.

c. his own evidence of alleged expenditure on pain relief medication.

The loss of amenities suffered

78. This is detailed in paragraph 7 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement in which the

Claimant states vaguely that prior to the accident he was physically very active and enjoyed

recreational sporting activities “such as cricket and football”.

The extent to which, consequently the victim’s pecuniary prospects have been generally

affected

79. The Claimant’s evidence in chief at paragraph 13 is “the driving position makes me very

uncomfortable and places pressure on my back and increases my lower back discomfort”. Yet he

drives a car.

of 34

80. Dr. Narine stated in his evidence that if the Claimant is to drive a vehicle he suggests that

it not be a truck but a vehicle with good suspension. Dr. Narine acknowledges that pain is

subjective and that the degree of pain that a patient experiences is mostly determined by what the

patient reports. The claimant himself volunteered that his pain was ameliorated significantly

when he visited a rub doctor. That visit alleviated his pain to the point where he was able to

return to work. It is curious however if the claimant were really experiencing the level of pain

that he claims, and if he were as confident as he testified as to the relief that he actually enjoyed

after receiving his treatment / massage, that he never visited him again.

81. It suggests

a. that the claimant’s pain could have been relieved by non surgical methods;

b. that the pain was not so severe as to compel him to again seek such relief from that source

despite its efficacy the first time.

82. It may well have been that a second visit may have produced little or no result but it does

suggest that whatever pain was being experienced by the claimant was not of sufficient severity

as to lead him to a repeat visit to find out for himself .

83. It can be concluded that a. the claimant’s level of pain is actually less than reported.

b. that his ability to drive a car is less compromised than asserted.

JUDICIAL TRENDS

84. Based on the level of disability as found above the following cases were cited as

relevant:

1. CV 2007 – 02766 Carolyn Flemming –v- The Attorney General of Trinidad &

Tobago delivered 21/5/12

Back injury with low back pain or L/S strain; L4/L5 S1 nerve root impairment due

to facet joint motion segment instability and ligament injury causing instability to the

lower back or lumbar spine. Intermittent pain – upper and lower back . Could not sit

for long periods. Effects of injury as found appear to be similar to the instant case.

of 34

Award of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

2. CV 2008 – 04045 Andre Marchong –v- T&TEC and Galt & Littlepage Limited

Delivered 21/5/10 per the Honourable Justice Jones

Soft tissue injury and lumbar spasm which resulted in some narrowing of the lateral

recess at L4/L5 with possible impingement of the traversing L5 nerve root and early

disc degeneration at the L5/S1 level. Complaints of level of pain found to be

exaggerated. Effects of injury appear to be less severe than in the instant case.

Award of $60,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

3. CV 2007 – 02664 Anne-Marie Redman –v- Hillary Samuel

Delivered 10/07/09 per the Honourable Justice Stollmeyer

Disc desiccation at L3-4. L4-5 and L5/S1; and the disc at L4/L5 was bulging inwards

and pressing on the nerve in that area. Claimant was in extreme pain at trial. Could

not sit on a chair for more than 45 minutes. The effects of injury in this case appear to

have been more serious than in the instant case.

Award of $100,000.00 for General Damages for pain and suffering and loss of

amenities which sum included $40,000.00 for surgery.

4. CV 2006 – 00574 Choon v Industrial Plant Services Limited

Date 2009 per the Honourable Justice Smith

Injury to spine L5/S1, requiring surgery- laminectomy and disectomy. Claimant

found to have exaggerated symptoms post surgery.

Award of: $90,000.00

5. Dexter Sobers v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago CV 2008 04393

Judgment delivered on the 27th May, 2011

The Claimant sustained a loss of lumbar lordosis, disc desiccation and annular tear

at L4/5 and L5/S1 levels; diffuse disc bulge with posterior central propensity

indenting thecal sac with no neural compression; diffuse disc bulge with propensity

of 34

to left and posterior left paracentral small disc protrusion impinging on left S1

traversing nerve root.

The Claimant there experienced back pain, which radiated down the left leg

following the accident. The doctor found that the Claimant’s straight leg raising was

greater than 90 degrees bilaterally, with a negative sciatic stretch test. Power,

sensation and reflexes were within normal limits.

The doctor was of the opinion that there were findings to support the Claimant’s

complaints of “left sided sciatica” and recommended spinal surgery if the Claimant’s

symptoms failed to improve. General Damages were awarded in the sum of

$80,000.00.

I find that these injuries were less severe than the instant case.

6. Gillian Isaac v Shaun Solomon and Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd

CV 2007-04400 Delivered 17th December, 2009 before The Honourable Mr. Justice

Des Vignes.

According to the medical report, the Claimant appeared to ambulate with a normal

gait, lumbar spine flexion was reduced, the cervical spine had a severe restriction

of motion in all planes to about only 30% of that which was expected. There was

moderate cervical muscle spasm, the paravertebral muscles of the neck and lower

back were very tender with muscle spasm which was also noted on the lumbar

area.

X-rays of the cervical spine showed a reversal of normal lordosis with degenerative

narrowing of the C6/C7 disc space and posterior osteophytes. The thoracic spine x-

rays appeared normal. Lumbar spine x-rays showed loss of the normal lordosis and a

mild scoliosis. The findings were consistent with moderate soft tissue injuries to the

cervical and lumbar spine. Three weeks later on a second examination the Claimant

complained that her neck pains worsened and there was no improvement in her back.

of 34

There were mild spondylotic changes, endplate changes and osteophytic lipping at

C6/C7 level. There were osteophyte disc complexes indenting the anterior epidural fat

at the C4/C5 and C6/C7 levels but no evidence of cervical cord or nerve

compression was seen. The MRI of the lumbar spine showed loss of lordosis

consistent with muscle spasm. There was mild bulging of the L5/S1 disc with no

impingement of the nerve roots.

New MRI scans of the whole spine showed loss of the cervical lordosis and some

L5-S1 disc degeneration.

In a more recent medical report, it was reported that the Claimant developed chronic

neck and back pains secondary to her whiplash injuries.

General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities were assessed at

$40,000.00. It was found that in that case the claimant’s current condition and loss of

amenities had been exaggerated.

The injuries complained of in that case are similar to those of the instant claimant in

that they resulted in restriction of back movement and some pain.

7. Selwyn Charles v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago H.C.A No 2092

of 2002: Date of Judgment: 25th June, 2008

The Plaintiff in this case was awarded the sum of $50,000.00 by this court in June

2008 for General Damages. However the medical report was found to be inadequate.

These injuries relate to cervical spine.

He was transferred to the Port of Spain General Hospital where he was warded for

five days and discharged on 25th June 2001.

Medical evidence

of 34

The examination revealed tenderness and decreased range of movements of the

cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine and early spasticity of the lower limbs.

Sensation and power were normal. These findings suggest spinal cord injury at the

cervical level.”

“On the 3rd day of September 2001 I sent Mr. Charles for an MRI scan and the scan

revealed injuries at C5-6, C6-7, C7-D1. On 29th November 2001 surgery was done.

The surgery involved cervical laminectomy and cervical cord decompression. Post-

op was uneventful. Mr. Charles was started on swimming, back exercises, anti-

inflammatories and further therapy. On 6th May 2002 Mr. Charles was sent for

another MRI. This MRI showed injuries to D8 and D9 vertebrae with no cord

injury.”

“The evidence is that the Plaintiff sustained some injury but the extent has not been

sufficiently detailed. On the nature and gravity of the resulting disability, it appears

that there is some limitation of movement. In respect of pain and suffering which

had to be endured, there is little evidence in this regard. Without explanation by Dr.

Bedaisie, the significance of early spasticity of the lower limbs could not be

demonstrated. There is no evidence of any loss of amenities suffered”.

The evidence in that case was not as cogent or specific as in the instant case.

8. In the case of Gerard Jadoobirsingh v Bristow Caribbean CV 2005-00784

delivered by the Honourable Justice Dean Armorer on 20th November 2007,

(referred to in Charles above, an award of $80,000.00 was made. In that case, that

plaintiff supplied medical testimony that his injury consisted of mild protrusions at

four locations on the spine. He testified as to the nature and gravity of the resulting

physical disability and, in particular as to his pain, the fact that he was forced to

tender his resignation on account of his inability to work, his inability to sit at his

desk for more than 30 minutes or to write for more than 15 minutes, the development

of numbness and pain on sitting or attempts to write. In that case, the claimant also

produced medical testimony that certified a diagnosis of post traumatic stress

of 34

disorder, unlike in the instant case. Evidence was also led of his loss of amenities,

and sexual dysfunction was proved.

I find the injuries in that case were more severe than in the instant case and the

evidence of impact on ability to work more cogent.

9. In the Privy Council decision of Peter Seepersad v Theophilus Persad, Privy

Council Appeal No. 86 of 2002, delivered on April 1 2004 the appellant had

sustained wedge compression fractures of the L1 and T12 vertebrae which were

healed. The L5 S1 disc was prolapsed leading to continuing pain and incapacity.

In that case, the Privy Council declined to interfere with an award of $75,000.00 in

respect of general damages. The injuries in that case and the continuing effects

thereof were comparable with the instant case.

FINDINGS

85. Pain and suffering – controlled by analgesics. There is no evidence that the client sought

treatment, or needed to seek treatment, in the years between seeing Dr. Narine the first time and

the second visit. The claimant himself estimates his expenditure on pain killers over 4 years at

$1000.00. That works out to $250.00 per year or a little over $20.00 per month.

86. The sum of $90,000.00 is consistent with the trend established locally for General

Damages for similar injuries, or injuries similar in their effects.

87. Based on the findings as to the claimant’s actual level of pain and suffering, injury, and

level of disability, and in light of the range and trend of awards for injuries similar in their

effects, an award of $90,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities

would be appropriate with interest to run on General Damages from the service of the Claim

form (first filed on 11th February 2014) at the rate of 6% per annum until the date of judgment.

88. The defendant is to pay to the claimant the following:-

i. The sum of $90,000.00 for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

of 34

ii. Interest on this sum at the rate of 6 % from date of service of the claim form to date of

judgment.

Handicap on the labour market

89. The sum of $100,000.00 was proposed as compensation for the claimant’s alleged

handicap on the job market. I understood this to include a claim for a Blamire type award. There

are two possibilities. One is that given the uncertainties and imponderables in assessing what the

claimant’s actual loss of earnings would be if he had sought alternative employment, an award

should simply be made of a lump sum. The evidence in relation to the existence of any such

handicap must be first considered.

Loss of pecuniary prospects

90. It was the Claimant’s responsibility to prove that the nature of the injury he received was

of such a nature that it rendered the Claimant handicapped in the job market.

91. It is fully accepted that the claimant cannot resume his job as a Heavy T driver or engage

in strenuous physical activity, especially involving lifting. However the medical evidence is not

that the Claimant is incapable of working.

92. The medical evidence here is that the claimant is able to work in a sedentary occupation,

and that if he were to drive it should not be a heavy vehicle, avoiding delays and heavy traffic. In

fact the claimant’s own evidence is that he does drive a car.

93. I further find that the likely continuing effects of the claimant’s injuries are, on the

evidence, and on a balance of probabilities, not as severe as portrayed.

of 34

Alternative employment

94. See judgement of the Honourable Mr. Justice of Appeal Hamel-Smith in the matter of

Sookhoo Civ App. 21 of 1993 del. February 20th 1998), where he considered the issue of loss of

earning, and stated at pages 6-7 of the judgment:- (all emphasis added)

“I now return to the claim of loss of earnings, both actual and future. The main

complaint is that the evidence led on behalf of the respondent was that he was capable of

some sedentary (clerical) work. I have already shown that it was the duty of the

respondent to prove that he has been totally incapacitated and that his actual earning

power had been completely eroded as a result of the injury in order to justify a claim for

total loss of future earnings. Given Dr. Collymore’s evidence, it is evident that he had

failed to do so.

It is true that a man may be disabled for heavy work, that he has no talent for anything

else and is unable to find light work. Such a man has obviously lost all his earning

capacity and it is only fair that he be compensated on the basis of total loss. But can this

be said of the respondent? The respondent himself said very little on his future prospects

of working. He was content to say that since his termination he had not worked. Dr.

Collymore, on the other hand, was emphatic that he was not totally disabled but that he

was fit for sedentary (clerical) work. All else is left in the air. Did the respondent make

any effort to find an alternative job along the lines prescribed by Dr. Collymore? There

is nothing to suggest that he did and save for Dr. Collymore’s opinion that he was fit to

do some work no attempt was made to establish that he had no talent for anything else.

It is true that he did say that he could not work his garden but that was in the line of

manual labour. Counsel did submit that his education was limited and that Dr.

Collymore’s evidence was predicated upon the respondent having the requisite education

to perform such work. I must confess that I can find no evidence to support this

submission. Had Dr. Collymore qualified his evidence on the issue in that way it may

have been otherwise.

As much as one can empathise with the respondent’s predicament it is difficult to ignore

the medical evidence on this earning power, albeit reduced, and the absence of any

evidence that he had made attempts to secure alternative clerical employment or was

of 34

unable to do such work. He had on a previous occasion applied for a clerical job with

the appellant. That he was unsuccessful in that application is of no moment but it

certainly confirms that he himself had formed the view that he could perform such work.

In the circumstances the trial judge was wrong to treat the case on a total loss basis as he

did. He had to approach his assessment, in my view, on the basis of partial loss.”

95. While there is evidence that the claimant will suffer discomfort if he were to drive heavy

vehicles, especially if their suspensions are “non-existent” there is less compelling evidence that

he cannot drive any vehicle at all. In fact the claimant testified that he now drives a car. There is

no evidence that his current earnings are any less than those he received as a truck driver. While

the claimant has suffered injury, and it could render some forms of employment less comfortable

than previously it must be borne in mind that the claimant was in fact able to work as a truck

driver for 2 months following the accident before his employment was terminated.

96. The claimant returned to work for two months before his employment was terminated by

his employer. He was driving heavy T vehicles at that point. When asked about this he

volunteered that he was not getting sick leave from doctors so he sought the services of a

massage therapist – a “rub doctor”- who did a fantastic job and relieved his pain sufficiently to

enable him to return to work as a driver. He also testified that he never sought the services of that

person again although he could have located them if he needed.

97. This indication of what the claimant did, as contrasted with what he says, suggests

strongly that the claimant’s evidence of pain and discomfort, even when driving a truck, may be

overstated. I note Dr Narine’s recommendation that the claimant not drive a truck or heavy

vehicle with “non-existent suspension” and on “rough roads”. However there are sufficient

possibilities for his employment, even as a driver, without the claimant having to subject himself

to vehicles with non-existent suspension, or rough roads.

of 34

Earning capacity

98. I am satisfied that the claimant has the ability to do other types of work. For example, he

currently drives a car. It has not been established, despite the claim for handicap on the job

market, that he actually has been handicapped on the job market.

99. The evidence suggests that a. the claimant was able to work as a truck driver as he in fact

did so for two months after the accident.

100.

i. The claimant was and is able to drive a car now.

ii. The claimant has not lost income as he has not claimed that he has done so.

iii. The claimant has not suffered any handicap on the job market, as, despite written

submissions to this effect, he has not claimed that he has.

101. Dr. Narine suggests that the claimant should not drive heavy vehicles and should restrict

himself to sedentary duties. However there is no evidence that if the claimant were to do so, and

he has not testified that he has tried to do so, that he would even suffer any loss of income.

102. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the claimant has established any partial loss of

earning capacity or handicap on the labour market. In those circumstances the evidence simply

does not support a claim for a Blamire type award or any award for loss of earning capacity.

Though there is no evidence on the likely pattern of the claimant’s future earnings, of greater

relevance is that there is absolutely no evidence that his future earnings would even be reduced

in either a. his current employment , or b. future alternative employment.

Permanent partial disability

103. The claimant was assessed by Dr. Narine with a permanent partial disability of 30%. This

carries the potential to be misleading. See the case of Peter Seepersad v Theophilus Persad

and Capital Insurance Limited Civ App. No 137 of 2000 per the Honourable Kangaloo JA

on the issue of “permanent partial disability.

of 34

104. The Defendant’s contention is accepted, that it is the impact of the injury here that has to

be considered, namely, inter alia:-

Despite a permanent partial disability figure of 30% given by Dr. Narine the actual effects of the

injury on the claimant are revealed by his actions namely:

(a) Assertions of pain, occasional numbness, spasms, restrictions on movement of ankles yet

despite receiving symptomatic relief after the visit to a massage therapist never seeking to

repeat that treatment.

(b) Driving a car.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

a. Medical Services – Dr. Narine

105. Though stated in paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement that the Claimant

paid Dr. Narine $1,000.00 per visit for three visits , there is supporting evidence that the claimant

saw Dr. Narine twice - in 2010 and then not until 2013, for the purpose of obtaining a medical

report. There is no evidence that in the interim he saw another doctor. Dr. Narine assumed that

the claimant was being treated by another doctor but there is no evidence that this was so. There

is a receipt apparently dated July 2012 for a consultation and medical report but no

corresponding medical report in 2012.

106. In fact it states that $1000.00 was charged for a consultation and medical report. It is

unlikely that on the first visit in 2010 when no report was produced that he would also have been

charged $1000.00.

107. $1,000.00 is therefore proved and awarded as I do not accept that the claimant would

have been charged $1000.00 on the first visit when no medical report was produced. No interest

is awarded as there is an unexplained discrepancy between the date of the receipt and the date of

the medical report almost a year later in 2013.

of 34

(b) Travelling

As stated in paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement the Claimant claims to have spent

approximately $1,000.00 on his travelling expenses. This is simply a guess which has no

supporting particulars or calculation whatsoever. It is not allowed.

(c) M.R.I. Report $4,000.00

As stated in paragraph 11 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement the Claimant spent $4,000.00 for

the M.R.I. report. This is allowed. The report is attached to his statement of case.

Future Surgery disallowed

Handicap on the Labour Market disallowed

Special Damages

Medical Services -Dr. Narine $1,000.00

Travelling disallowed

MRI Report - November 10th 2011 $4,000.00

TOTAL $5,000.00

With interest to run on $4000.00 Special Damages from November 10th 2011 at the rate of 3%

per annum until the date of judgment.

Findings and conclusion

108. I find that the claimant was not contributorily negligent in the circumstances of this case.

He did all that was reasonably required of him, both as an experienced truck driver and by reason

of 34

of his contract of employment, in inspecting the gauges and basic mechanisms of the truck

before operating it and embarking on the journey up the slope.

109. I find that on a balance of probabilities the claimant was not provided with a check list on

the day of the accident. It is not the case that a checklist was provided to him which he failed to

complete.

110. I find further:

a. that in any event the check list was not a substitute for basic inspection of the vehicle and in

particular for paying attention to the gauges on the instrument panel,

b. that the gauges on the instrument panel would have shown if the pressure had not built up

sufficiently. The claimant in all likelihood would have paid attention to those gauges not least

because they were prominently located on the dashboard in front of him.

Though the truck would not have moved if the pressure were below 4-6 bars there was a range of

pressures between 6 and 7-8 where it would have moved, even sluggishly though the hydraulic

pressure had not yet built up sufficiently to ensure adequate braking capability.

112. The defendant is liable to the claimant for providing a truck which contained a defective

holding valve which defect could not be reasonably observed or detected by the claimant and

which defect did not manifest itself either:

a. by a reading on the instrument panel at the material times of starting or operating the truck, or

b. by the operating performance of the truck for example sluggishness, or

c. by a detectable effect on brake performance when the truck was started, or

d. when stopped initially to be loaded before being driven to the top of the slope.

113. The inadequacy of available brake capability first became observable when the truck,

fully loaded, stopped on a steep slope. By that time it was too late for the claimant to do

anything about it. Engaging the emergency brake would in the circumstances be a counsel of

perfection. His admitted failure to apply or engage the handbrake or emergency brake cannot, in

the very limited time available to him to respond to the sudden emergency situation in which he

found himself cannot be characterized as negligence or failing to take steps for his own safety.

of 34

114. I do not however accept that the injuries sustained by the claimant or their effects are not

so severe as contended.

DISPOSITION AND ORDERS

115. (i) The defendant is to pay to the claimant general damages assessed in the sum of

$90,000.00.

(ii) Interest is to run thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of service of

the claim form to the date of judgement.

(iii) The defendant is to pay to the claimant special damages in the sum of $5,000.00

(iv) Interest is to run on the sum of $4000.00 at the rate of 3% per annum from

November 10th 2011 to the date of judgement.

(v) The defendant is to pay to the claimant costs on the basis prescribed by the Civil

Proceedings Rules for a claim in the total of the above amounts.

Date the 19th day of April, 2016

…………………………………

Peter A. Rajkumar

Judge

The Court expresses its appreciation for the assistance and contribution of Judicial Research Counsel Ms. E. Ali

the republic of trinidad and tobago in the...

Documents