Breach Of Contract Case

Why did the court rule that way

The court ruled in favor of the Claimant because:
- The Claimant's witnesses were found to be credible.
- The Defendant's version of events was considered improbable and implausible.
- The evidence supported the Claimant's claim of a loan agreement, rather than the Defendant's assertion of debt repayment from a third party.
Would you like more details on any specific point?

Yes more details

To provide you with more detailed information, please specify which aspect of the case you would like more details on:
- The credibility of the witnesses.
- Why the Defendant’s version of events was considered improbable or implausible.
- The evidence supporting the Claimant's claim.
- Any other specific point?

All

Case Summary
Case Title:
LMCS Limited (Claimant) vs. Darren Singh (Defendant)
Court:
High Court of Justice, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Claim Number:
CV *-*
Judge:
The Honourable Mr Justice Frank Seepersad
Legal Representatives:
- For the Claimant: Mr Hallpike instructed by Ms Kamini Persaud-Maraj
- For the Defendant: Mr Heath instructed by Ms Narine
Date of Delivery:
4th December, *
Key Issues:
- Claim: Breach of contract for failure to repay a loan of $*.5M with contractual interest of *% per annum from 9th August, *.
- Defense: Defendant claims the cheques were payments owed to him by Keith Subiah/Nu Image Shuttle Service Limited, not a loan.
Findings:
- The Court found that the Claimant's witnesses, Ms. Deosingh and Mr. Kazim Ali, were credible.
- The Defendant’s version of events was found to be improbable and implausible.
- Judgment was entered in favor of the Claimant for the sum of $*.5M, with interest accruing at the statutory rate from the date of judgment until repayment.
- The Defendant was also ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs.
Conclusion:
The Court ruled in favor of the Claimant, validating the loan agreement and dismissing the Defendant's claim that the cheques were for repaying a debt owed by Nu Image Shuttle Service Limited.

Detailed Points
Credibility of the Witnesses:
- Ms. Deosingh: The Court found her testimony consistent and truthful. There were no material contradictions during cross-examination.
- Mr. Kazim Ali: His testimony was also consistent with his evidence in chief. Although he admitted to not always following through with business arrangements accurately, the Court found him credible.
Why the Defendant’s Version of Events Was Considered Improbable or Implausible:
- The Defendant claimed the cheques were payments from a third party (Mr. Subiah) for debts owed to him. However, there was no direct evidence or testimony from Mr. Subiah to support this claim.
- The Court found it unlikely that such a large sum would be transferred without proper documentation or receipts.
Evidence Supporting the Claimant's Claim:
- The cheques issued to the Defendant had the word "loan" endorsed on them, which supported the Claimant’s assertion of a loan agreement.
- The Claimant's witnesses testified about oral discussions and the issuance of post-dated cheques as part of the loan arrangement.

Additional Specific Points:
- The Court noted that the Claimant had agreements showing substantial sums owed by Nu Image to the Claimant, making it unlikely that the Claimant would pay sums to Nu Image without first setting off what was owed.
Ruling:
- The Court found in favor of the Claimant, ordering the Defendant to repay $*.5M with interest and cover the Claimant’s costs.
Case Rating: *

Breach Of Contract Case

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats