The Court of Appeal is currently “shooting in the dark” regarding the reasons for the decision made by the trial judge in the lawsuit brought against the Barbados Water Authority (BWA) by businesswoman Asha ‘Mrs Ram’ Mirchandani.
Led by Justice Rajendra Narine and Justices Jefferson Cumberbatch and Margaret Reifer, the appellate court on Thursday put in an urgent request to the Registrar for Justice Michelle Weekes to compile the reasons after counsel for Mirchandani, Lynette Eastmond and Lennox Miller asked for these to be provided.
The lawsuit was filed against the BWA over its disconnection of water supply to Mirchandani’s Casa Grande Hotel in St Philip, which trades as Knitwear Limited, for owing over $260 000 in arrears in 2018.
In 2019, Justice Weekes who heard the injunction made several orders, including that half of the total arrears be paid, the property be inspected by the BWA and the full payment of the monthly water bill going forward.
That judgment was appealed and in 2021, the order was varied by the Court of Appeal to state that on reconnection of the service, Mirchandani would be required to pay the full amount charged and levied by the BWA in each monthly bill, inclusive of the Garbage and Sewage Contribution Levy, within 28 days of said billing.
Speaking in the virtual sitting on Thursday, Justice Narine said, “We have read both sets of submissions. We are of the view having read them that we need to have the reasons of the trial judge to properly adjudicate on your application. Ms Eastmond has made the point in her submissions that in the absence of the written reasons she would not be able to provide particulars of certain grounds and that is so. So what we propose to do is to put this matter to the earliest date we can and do our best to get the reasons in advance of that date.”
Attorney-at-law Gregory Nicholls, representing BWA along with Ona Harewood, queried what the absence of those reasons would mean.
“That, in itself, is a valid ground of appeal, Mr Nicholls,” said the lead judge, stating that the reasons had been asked for previously but had not yet reached the court.
Nicholls said that while the appellant has a duty to comply with the rules, “the non-delivery of the written decisions constrains the appellant to file a notice of appeal”.
“I would think the way in which that is mitigated is by the court exercising its discretion to grant an amended notice of appeal or to file an appeal out of time,” he said.
Justice Narine admitted this was the difficulty.
“They are appealing the decision of the trial judge and we do not have a clue, as we speak now, as to what was the basis for the decision. So you are shooting in the dark,” he admitted.
The judge stated that in fairness to both sides, the reasons must be reviewed.
“We will direct the Registrar to communicate with the judge once more, the urgency of the court having these reasons in advance of the return date,” he added.
The matter has been adjourned to December 4.
