Leslie Lynch and Tateco San Fernando Credit Union Corporative Society Ltd v Board of Directors of Tateco San Fernando Cooperative Society Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 286
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2020-02119

Leslie Lynch and Tateco San Fernando Credit Union Corporative Society Limited

and

Board of Directors of Tateco San Fernando Cooperative Society Limited et al

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV2020-02119

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Haresh Ramnath, Attorney at Law for the Claimant.

Mr. Kingsley Walesby, Attorney at Law for the First and Second Defendants and TATECO San Fernando Credit Union Cooperative Society Limited.

RULING

Mohammed, J.

1 On 26 March 2021 (“the March 2021 Order”), I struck out the Second Claimant as a party to the claim. I also struck out the claim against the First and Second Defendants and ordered that the First Claimant pay the First and Second Defendants the costs of the First and Second Defendants' Application filed on 30 October 2020 (“the striking out application”) to be assessed by a Registrar in default of agreement. I also ordered the First Claimant to pay the First and Second Defendants the costs of the action, which were quantified in the sum of $6,300.00 and the costs of the striking out application, which were assessed by the Registrar on 24 May 2023 (“the Registrar's Order”) in the sum of $67,700.00. The First Claimant appealed the March 2021 Order, and on 12 October 2022 (“the Court of Appeal's Order”), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and assessed the costs at 2/3 of the costs below, being $49,333.33. Subsequently, the First Claimant made a payment of $4,000.00 towards the aforesaid costs, leaving a balance of $119,333.33.

2 The two applications which are to be determined concern the recovery of the aforesaid costs. On 19 February 2025 (“the sale application”) the First and Second Defendants filed a re-amended application seeking an order for sale by private treaty or public action of the First Claimant's interest in two parcels of land (“the two parcels”) in Trinidad; to appoint Messrs Harrikissoon & Company, Attorneys at law or such other conveyancer or Attorney at law to report on the title of the First Claimant for the two parcels; that a valuation report be prepared and filed with respect to the two parcels; and that the Claimant pay the costs of the application for sale, the report on title, the valuation and the sale by private treaty or public auction. In support were two affidavits of Ms. Stephanie Rajkumar.

3 Subsequently on 12 March 2025 (“the substitution application”) TATECO San Fernando Credit Union Co-operative Society Limited (“TATECO”) applied to be substituted for the First and Second Defendants in this action for the purpose of enforcing the costs orders made in favour of the First and Second Defendants against the First Claimant by this Court in the March 2021 Order; the Registrar's Order and the Court of Appeal's Order for the purpose of receiving any monies which are payable pursuant to those orders. In support of the substitution application was an affidavit of Natalia Myler, Manager of TATECO2 (“the Myler Affidavit”).

4 Based on the orders sought in the sale application and the substitution application, I will first deal with the substitution application.

THE SUBSTITUTION APPLICATION

5 Counsel for TATECO submitted that TATECO is seeking to be formally substituted for the First and Second Defendants in these proceedings in order to enforce the aforesaid costs orders and to facilitate the payment and receipt of any monies which are payable pursuant to those orders as TATECO accepted that the First and Second Defendants do not have legal status as the First Defendant is the Board of Directors of TATECO and the Second Defendant is the Nomination Committee of TATECO. Counsel argued that in the hearing which resulted in the March 2021 Order, TATECO retained Attorneys at Law to represent its own interests and the interests of the members of the First Defendant and the Second Defendant whom the First Claimant had wrongfully sued in respect of his claim. TATECO also incurred additional legal costs in retaining legal Counsel on behalf of the First and Second Defendants in respect of the appeal. Counsel argued that there is no conflict of interest in substituting TATECO in place of the First and Second Defendants as TATECO has no interest adverse to that of the First and Second Defendants.

6 Counsel also argued that TATECO would be significantly prejudiced if the order for substitution is not granted, as it would prevent them from recovering the costs which the First Claimant was ordered to pay and permit the First Claimant to benefit from his wrongful actions and misdirected claims which have caused TATECO to incur substantial expense in defending the claim which was wrongfully instituted against them. The First Claimant would not be prejudiced as he would merely be required to pay the same legal costs which he was already ordered to pay and which he has not objected to. In support, Counsel relied on the Privy Council judgment in The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Carmel Smith [2009] U.K.P.C. 50.

7 In opposition, Counsel for the First Claimant submitted that the substitution application is a nullity as the claim was struck out against the First and Second Defendants for not being proper parties, and TATECO is attempting to revive a claim. In support, Counsel for the First Claimant relied on the Court of Appeal judgment of Pemberton, J.A. in The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Alison Ayres Civil Appeal No. P 247 of 2019.

8 Rule 19.3 CPR states that a claim shall not fail because a person was added as a party to the...