Attorneys representing former board members of the University of T&T (UTT) have come to an agreement with the university over legal costs arising from a lawsuit over the failed multi-million dollar lease of a guest house in Aripo, which was withdrawn prematurely earlier this month.
The deal was struck by attorneys representing Prof Ken Julien, Dr Rene Monteil, Ravindra Nath-Maharaj, Scott Hilton-Clarke and Errol Pilgrim during a brief hearing on the issue before Justice Vasheist Kokaram in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday.
An agreement on the issue did not appear plausible at the start of the hearing as lawyers representing the former board members held firm to their estimates of the legal costs incurred by their clients for defending the lawsuit.
Kokaram intervened and asked the parties to reconsider their positions to avoid a lengthy process.
After holding brief talks out of court, the lawyers returned and informed Kokaram that the issue had been resolved.
While the details of the settlement and the total cost to the university were not revealed during the hearing, the T&T Guardian understands that the agreed sums were less than those initially being claimed by the board members.
During the hearing Kokaram also advised the current board members to consider apologising to their predecessors for the lawsuit in a bid to convince the former board to refrain from filing a separate lawsuit against their former employers for malicious prosecution.
Stating that both groups of board members clearly had the same intention, that is, to develop the tertiary institution, Kokaram suggested that discussions between the two would only serve to strengthen the organisation and ensure continuity of projects.
Senior Counsel John Jeremie, who represented Julien, agreed with Kokaram’s suggestion as he said: “An apology will go a long way to convince him (Julien) to put this whole incident down to an overeager and capricious act by the (former) attorney general.”
While Julien and the board members would welcome an apology, Jeremie said, in the absence of one they reserved their right to file a claim seeking compensation for damage to their reputations.
Although UTT’s corporate secretary Dorwin Manzano was present in court for the hearing, no agreement was made in regard to the apology.
UTT was represented by Gerald Ramdeen and Varun Debideen. The directors’ legal team included Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and attorneys Larry Lalla, Kerwyn Garcia, Stuart Young, Ravi Heffes-Doon and Anthony Bullock.
About the case
The lawsuit arose out of a forensic audit on UTT ordered by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan shortly after the 2010 general election. It is one of several lawsuits filed against former board members who served under the previous PNM administration and is the first to reach the trial stage.
UTT initiated the lawsuit in September 2012, claiming the former board had breached its fiduciary duty and failed to exercise due diligence in the sub-leasing of the guest house from Consolidated Services Ltd (CSL) for a five-year renewable lease at a monthly rent of $50,000.
It contended that the board failed to act on the advice of the university’s legal team, which in 2006 discovered the owner of the property could not enter into the deal as the 150 acres of land the property is on was derived from a lease from the Government which had expired.
Former director Giselle Marfleet was initially listed in the case. However, the lawsuit was withdrawn against her at the start of the trial last week.
In their defence the directors stated they were not aware of the issue with the land when the deal was signed and they took steps to purchase the property after it was discovered.
As a secondary issue, UTT was suing Julien for allegedly authorising the temporary accommodation of the Rev Juliana Pena, the former spiritual adviser to former prime minister Patrick Manning, at the facility although she was not a guest of the university.
This claim collapsed on trial when the guest house administrator, Arlene Jute, testified that private customers and UTT staff were charged the same rates for use of the facility.
Although she did not provide financial records, Jute also claimed that the facility was profitable to the university. This was in direct contradiction of the UTT’s main contention that the facility had caused it a $10.4 million loss during its operations. The case was withdrawn by Attorney General Garvin Nicholas, after Jute’s testimony earlier this month.