A high court judge has ordered the State and the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) to compensate a private project-management company for work done on 32 schools in Tobago under the Education Ministry’s primary schools computerisation project from 2006-2009.
The court decided on Wednesday that the Government will have to pay Global Competitive Strategies Ltd (GCSL) the value of the work it did, which will have to be assessed on a
quantum meruit basis, while the THA was ordered to pay $1 million for breach of contract.
Each sum will incur 2.5 per cent interest from June 13, 2017-October 12, 2022. Costs orders were also made against the State and the THA.
Justice Ricky Rahim had to determine if the State was liable to pay sums claimed on an outstanding contract for work done by GCSL; whether there was an enforceable supplemental agreement between the company and the THA; and whether the Education Ministry or the assembly was liable for a breach of the contract.
The relationship between the company and the THA’s division of education, youth affairs and sports began when GCSL responded to a public tender in 2004. It received the contract, but said in 2010, it was amended to additional services on 20 construction projects.
In its claim, GCSL sought to recover $8.8 million in outstanding payments for project management services provided to the THA; $2.4 million for loss of income and profit because of a breach of the contract for the supply of floodlighting to 12 community playing fields as part of the supplemental contract; and $82,000 for assessments of 32 primary schools under the original contract.
The company also sought declarations on the status of its contract with the THA. In its defence, the State maintained that GCSL had not proved the assessments of the 32 schools were completed or that the supplemental agreement was a variation of the original, so the firm should not be entitled to recover the sums it was asking for. It also contended that any liability it faced would extend only to sums owed by the education ministry and not to any agreement with the THA.
In its defence, the THA said it never authorised any work beyond that contained within the contract, and there was no written contract to rely on or be guided by regarding future tasks.
Rahim held that in the absence of an executed supplemental agreement, the THA, at the time, did enter into an agreement with GCSL for the work set out in the supplemental agreement.
Although he said while it was not binding on the THA, it was clear that the division’s administrator at the time, Umslopogaas Job, made numerous representations that were “demonstrative of an intention to create legal relations.”
“...It is accepted that works were in fact performed by the claimant in furtherance of these representations and most importantly, that the claimant was in fact paid over $900,000 by the THA for works completed.
“So that while there was no written contract, all of the elements necessary to create a contract between the THA and the claimant were pres
