LHC Ranked For 10th Consecutive Year

GPL awarded over $250 million for damage to submarine cable

In a ruling delivered Monday, Justice Nareshwar Harnanan ruled in favour of the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) Inc. awarding it over $255 million in damages, interest, and costs against the ship, Vlistdiep.

Justice Harnanan found that the ship negligently damaged GPL’s submarine cable on November 27, 2020.

In a statement of claim filed in April 2, 2021, GPL alleged that the ship Vlistdiep sailing with a Netherlands flag on November 27, 2020, dragged anchor and damaged its submarine cable laid on the floor of the Demerara River, resulting in several days of power outages in expensive subsea cable repairs.

GPL arrested the ship, which was released in exchange for a letter of undertaking issued by North P&I Club. GPL commenced suit alleging that the ship negligently, among other things, damaged its cable by failing to anchor outside the area designated by Guyana’s Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) maps, failing to ensure that the anchor was properly secured, failing to pay heed to MARAD’s notice to mariners concerning the position of the cable and failing to heed MARAD warnings.

The ship’s counsel, Nigel Hughes and Jed Vasconcellos of Hughes Fields and Stoby, argued that the vessel was not responsible for the damage and that it was under the control of a MARAD pilot.

After a lengthy trial involving the testimony of over six witnesses from MARAD and GPL, Justice Harnanan rejected these arguments and found that the ship breached its duty of care.

The judge found that MARAD officers gave crucial testimony and evidence as it related to standard operating proceedings for keeping a lookout. The Judge rejected submissions by the defendant to witnesses that the cable was not properly marked, who testified as to the international standard of MARAD’s chart, and which clearly established that the position of the cable was clearly marked.

The Judge also found that the ship had negligently dropped anchor which dragged as a result of the strong tide, and that the MARAD officers established that if there was proper lookout it would have immediately been noticed and the master failed to take appropriate action. T

he Court found that the evidence by the Claimant established on the balance of probabilities that it did not satisfy its duty of care, that it did it have the proper navigational charts, and that it caused GPL loss and damage.

In so doing the Court awarded GPL $200.9 million in special damages, $5 million in general damages with interest at 6% per annum from April 2, 2021 to the date of the judgment, and 4% thereafter until fully paid and fixed costs in the sum of $3 million totaling today in excess of $250 million inclusive of interest.

GPL was represented by Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Vieira, and Abhimanyu Dev of London House Chambers.

–  that resulted in extensive damage to Fly Jamaica aircraft
– claims of negligence dismissed against CJIA, GCAA; court to assess damages, costs

The High Court in Demerara has delivered its ruling in the longstanding case stemming from a collision at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) on November 29, 2016, involving aircraft operated by Fly Jamaica Airways and Caribbean Airlines Limited (CAL). The 44-page decision, handed down on January 7, 2025, assigns liability to multiple parties, ending years of litigation.

The dispute originated when a Caribbean Airlines Boeing 737-800 collided with a parked Fly Jamaica Airways Boeing 767-319ER on the airport apron, causing extensive damage to the latter.

Fly Jamaica, represented by attorney-at-law Ronald Burch-Smith, initiated the lawsuit in 2018, alleging negligence on the part of Caribbean Airlines, its two pilots, and New Timehri Handling Services, the ground-handling company contracted to provide marshaling services.

Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry concluded that the accident resulted from negligence involving multiple parties, including Caribbean Airlines, its Captain Gordon Seemungal, First Officer Dirk Thomas, the marshaling team from New Timehri Handling Services Incorporated, and other entities responsible for the aircraft’s navigation on the airport apron.

The court found that Caribbean Airlines’ pilots failed to follow air traffic control (ATC) instructions, which had directed them to use Taxiway Charlie-Alpha for accessing the apron.

Instead, the pilots utilised Taxiway Charlie-Bravo, which positioned their aircraft dangerously close to the Fly Jamaica plane. Despite their experience, the pilots were also found to have disregarded airport directives prohibiting large aircraft from taxiing behind parked Boeing 767s. Justice Sewnarine-Beharry noted that the pilots’ actions demonstrated a breach of their duty of care, exacerbated by their failure to verify ATC instructions when doubts arose.

The Judge said: “[Seemungal and Thomas], in their evidence, did not dispute the manner in which the accident occurred. They conceded that they were wrong to use Taxiway Charlie-Bravo, and had they followed the instructions of the ATC, they would not have endangered the claimant’s [Fly Jamaica’s] B767 aircraft by passing behind it. They both claimed that they had never received notification of any prohibition of taxiing behind a parked B767.” She stated that the pilots had a duty of care not only to Caribbean Airlines and its passengers but also to other operators at CJIA. This duty, she noted, required adherence to local regulations, compliance with airside directives, and obedience to ATC instructions to prevent accidents like the one in the case at bar.
The judge said that the pilots were equally responsible for receiving information from ATC.

“They ought to have asked the ATC to repeat the instructions if unsure or slow down or stop the [Caribbean Airlines] aircraft altogether and make queries of ATC before proceeding. Their failure to take any of these actions amount to a breach of the duty of care owed to the claimant.”

“The first, second and third defendants [Caribbean Airlines, Seemungal and Thomas] had a clear duty to ensure that they were in possession of all directives and regulations concerning maneuverability or parking of aircrafts at the CJIA.  I am satisfied that the claimant has discharged the legal and evidential burden of demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, negligence on the part of the first, second and third defendants,” Justice Sewnarine-Beharry held.

The fourth defendant, New Timehri Handling Services, the ground-handling company, was found liable for failing to provide adequate marshaling services.

The judge said that evidence presented during the trial indicated that the Wingwalker—a ground staff member responsible for ensuring safe taxiing—failed to warn the Caribbean Airlines pilots of the impending collision until four seconds before the crash. The court held that the ground-handling team’s negligence contributed to the accident, as they were responsible for guiding the aircraft safely to its parking position and ensuring no obstructions along its path.

“The undisputed evidence of the [pilots] is that they were not warned by the fourth defendant’s agents of the risk of collision. The Wingwalker ought to have perceived the risk of collision between the first defendant’s wing and the tail of the claimant’s aircraft and issued a stop order so that the Nose Marshaller could have in turn alerted the pilot to stop.”

CJIA, GCAA EXONERATED
The Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) and the Cheddi Jagan International Airport Corporation, named as third-party, were exonerated.
The court ruled that the proximate cause of the collision was the pilots’ disobedience of ATC instructions and the inadequate guidance provided by the ground-handling team.
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry dismissed the claims of negligence against these entities, noting that there was no evidence of non-compliance with international safety standards or errors in the placement of taxiing centerlines.

Caribbean Airlines, the first defendant, alleged that the GCAA and CJIA were responsible for ensuring compliance with international safety standards, including the placement of apron taxiing centerlines and the identification and allocation of aircraft parking spots at CJIA.

The regional airline further asserted that the apron taxiing centerline at CJIA was positioned too close to the parking spots.

“Again, the first defendant failed to adduce any evidence to support these assertions. No evidence was led to regarding noncompliance with international safety standards or given to support the contention that the taxiing center lines or assigned parking spots were in any manner contributory to the accident,” the High Court judge emphasised.
She added: “I find that the first defendant failed to discharge its legal and evidential burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the third parties were in any way errant in their duties and, therefore, liable in negligence to the first defendant for loss and damage sustained as a result of the accident that occurred on 29th November 2016.”

DAMAGES, COSTS TO BE ASSESSED
The court ordered Fly Jamaica, Caribbean Airlines and New Timehri Handling Services to submit written submissions on the assessment of damages to be awarded for the losses sustained.

Additionally, all parties were directed to address the assessment of legal costs, including those related to claims dismissed for want of prosecution.

Fly Jamaica argued that the collision rendered its Boeing 767 inoperable, leading to substantial repair costs and operational disruptions.

The legal team representing Caribbean Airlines was led by attorney Nigel Hughes, while attorney N. Ramkarran appeared on behalf of New Timehri Handling Services Incorporated.

Attorneys Devindra Kissoon and Natasha Vieira represented the GCAA, and Senior Counsel Robin Stoby acted as the representative for the CJIA.
Reports indicate that on November 29, 2016, at approximately 07:50 hours, a Caribbean Airlines aircraft struck the tail section of a Fly Jamaica plane. Fortunately, no injuries were reported.

Fly Jamaica, which commenced operations in 2013, later filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.

High Court finds Caribbean Airlines, pilots, ground handlers liable for 2016 CJIA collision

Justice Nareshwar on Wednesday dismissed a court action filed by Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs), Christopher Jones and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley who approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo has vacated his seat owing to his prolonged absence from the House.

Jagdeo, represented by Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Vieira and Abhimanyu Dev of London House Chambers, filed an application to dismiss the case on the basis that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter without the Speaker first giving Jagdeo an opportunity to be heard.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall, and Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, represented by Satram and Satram, joined in Jagdeo’s application.

Court dismisses opposition’s application to declare Jagdeo’s parliamentary seat vacant
Nov 21, 2024  News

Attorney-at- Law, Devindra KissoonKaieteur News- Justice Nareshwar on Wednesday dismissed a court action filed by Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs), Christopher Jones and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley who approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo has vacated his seat owing to his prolonged absence from the House.

Jagdeo, represented by Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Vieira and Abhimanyu Dev of London House Chambers, filed an application to dismiss the case on the basis that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter without the Speaker first giving Jagdeo an opportunity to be heard.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC. (Court dismisses opposition’s application)
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, and Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, represented by Satram and Satram, joined in Jagdeo’s application.

MPs, Jones and Sarabo-Halley represented by Senor Counsel, Roysdale Forde had previously issued a statement saying “We filed an application with the High Court addressing the prolonged absence of Jagdeo from the National Assembly and from parliamentary sessions (more than six consecutive sittings within the first session 2020- 2024).”

In the application the MPs said good governance relies heavily on the active participation of all elected officials, noting that Articles 54 and 156 1 (b) of the Constitution of Guyana and Standing Order 106 (2) of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly of Guyana provides that a seat of a Member of the National Assembly shall be vacated if a member is absent from the sittings in the National Assembly for more than six consecutive sittings of the National Assembly within the First Session (2020-2024) of the Twelfth Parliament of Guyana and within a period of no longer than two calendar months.

The Application states that Bharrat Jagdeo was absent for eleven consecutive sittings of the National Assembly from 11th December, 2023 to the 1st February, 2024; this being within the First Session (2020-2024) of the Twelfth Parliament of Guyana.

The application urged the Court to consider the constitutional and legal implications of Jagdeo’s absence from parliamentary sessions and make several declarations.

However, Justice Harnanan, in siding with Kissoon’s argument of prematurity that “The vacation of a seat under Article 156(l)(b) of the Constitution and Standing Order 106(2) is not automatic by operation of law as it is the Speaker’s responsibility to determine whether the threshold has been met. As the Speaker did not make such a decision, there can be no vacation, and thus the Fixed Date Application is premature.”

He stated that while Court may have jurisdiction, it could only be invoked after it was shown that there was non-compliance with standing order 106, a finding that the Court could not make at this juncture, only the speaker having the authority to do so.  In dismissing the case, the Court ordered the applicants to pay G$250,000 costs to each Respondent on or before December 31, 2024.

Court dismisses opposition’s application to declare Jagdeo’s parliamentary seat vacant