A former registrar of the Industrial Court was found to have 'dishonestly' assisted a client in a series of land transactions.
The finding was made by Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell against the attorney and former registrar Marilyn Sammy-Wallace in relation to the 2013 land transaction.
Sammy-Wallace was sued by Ganess Bhagwandeen who sought damages from her for 'knowingly assisting' the seller of the land that led to him paying $525,000 as part of an agreement for four lots of land in Freeport which was not repaid to him when the deal fell through.
Donaldson-Honeywell had to determine if Sammy-Wallace was liable for dishonestly assisting the vendor in a breach of trust.
She found Bhagwandeen had 'proven the dishonesty aspect' of his claim against Sammy-Wallace who was ordered to pay the $525,000 'for dishonestly assisting' vendor Stephanie Bonaparte-Primus, the client, in a breach of trust.
The judge also ordered the attorney to pay interest on the sum at a rate of five per cent per annum from November 8, 2013, to Wednesday's date when she delivered her ruling.
Sammy-Wallace was also ordered to pay Bhagwandeen's costs. He was represented by attorneys Gerald Ramdeen and Dayadai Harripaul while Sammy-Wallace was represented by attorneys Varude Badri-Maharaj and Suzette Bullen.
Bhagwandeen had advanced the payment for the land and Sammy-Wallace was Bonaparte-Primus's lawyer, hired to prepare the sale agreements.
Bonaparte-Primus failed to honour the terms of the transactions, never conveying the land or paying back the money.
In 2017, Bhagwandeen filed a claim to recover sums paid and this ended with judgment being awarded in his favour, in default, against Bonaparte-Primus, who is now dead.
In evidence before the court, Bhagwandeen presented information concerning the business relationship between the attorney and her client which showed the two entering into their own agreement for the sale of the land for which Bonaparte-Primus did not have a title.
There were four sale agreements in all with Bhagwandeen paying various sums for the land and there being a promise to pay him $1.5 million if the first three deals fell through.
It was his contention that the actions of the vendor amounted to a fraudulent and dishonest scheme to appropriate his funds under the guise of a land sale transaction. He also contended the attorney was aware of these actions and assisted her client in executing the 'fraudulent design.'
In defence of the claim against her, Sammy-Wallace contended that the claim raised no cause of action and was an abuse of process. She said the claims should have been made against the vendor, not her.
In her ruling, it was her case that she represented Bonaparte-Primus in the transactions, denying that she failed to advise Bhagwandeen to get independent legal advice. She also maintained she explained to Bhagwandeen the vendor's lack of proper title for the land and in relation to the 'usual terms of the agreements,' she was only following her client's instructions.
She pu
