THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 6) The Claimant in his Claim Form and Particulars of Claim avers that on the 4th February 2004, the defendant “carelessly, recklessly and maliciously printed, published and edited, in the Daily Gleaner of that date an Article which was libelous of him”. The article which was, as noted above, captioned “Blythe’s Firm Sued” contained the words complained of and which have already been set out. It was alleged in the Claim Form that the words were published “knowing the said statements to be false and without belief in its truth and knowing that the same would be to the detriment of the Claimant’s reputation in his professional duties as a medical doctor, a Member of Parliament and Vice President of the People’s National Party in particular and the public in general”.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [9] The Claimant contends that there was a valid assignment of a debt owed by the Defendant to Sure in the sum of $1,657,000.00. It further contends that the signature of Xxx. Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of the Defendant constituted an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay that debt of $1,657,000.00 and the Defendant is liable to pay this sum notwithstanding any issues which may have arisen as to the ownership of the Drink or the underlying Consignment Agreement by which the Defendant became liable to Sure in the first place.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 3. The claimant contends that during the course of performing its work as operator, the defendants obstructed and interfered with its operation of the quarry when the lease was terminated.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [8] The Claimant's case can be summarised as follows: -
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 15. The Claimant, which is in the business of supplying agricultural supplies and services, alleges that in early September 2003, its directors, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx and Xxxxx Xxxx attended a meeting at the offices of SMCL which was attended by Xxxx Xxxxxxx, the Chairman of SMCL, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, the Corporate Secretary of SMCL and of the First Defendant and the Third Defendant, a member of the Transition Team. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the possibility of the First Defendant becoming a harvesting contractor which would provide the SMCL with a supply of cane to enable it to meet its production target. The Claimant alleges that at this meeting, the Third Defendant, in response to a question raised by Xx. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx as to the duration of its contract, responded that "arrangements would be put in place for a long term contract for cultivation for a period of four (4) to five (5) years."
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [1] The Claimant commenced his employment in Kuala Lumpur as Senior Manager in the Operation Department pursuant to the contract of employment dated 01.03.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 2. The Claimant, Borde Xxxxxxxx and the Defendant, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx are the owners of two adjoining parcels of land situate along the Eastern Boundary of the Southern Main Road, Chase Village, Carapichaima. For ease, I shall respectfully refer to them by their first names. Xxxxx claims that at “all times there existed a natural watercourse which provided drainage and acted as a filtration system preventing the development of a catchment area on his premises and the neighbouring lands”. He claimed the natural watercourse “filtered into an underground box drain which facilitated the ease of water through his premises and the neighbouring lands”.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 4. On 7 September 2011 the parties entered into an agreement (the First Agreement) under which the claimant agreed to perform works described as the Design and Construction of Infrastructure for 800 Housing Units at the Egypt Village Chaguanas Housing Development for the sum of $240,670,583.00.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 13. The Claimant contends that the Defendants are not entitled to the protection of the Act for the following reasons:
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 5.Xxxxxxxx contends that the case is based on the wrongful termination of the contract dated the 25th November 2015. The said contract provided specific grounds for termination. Notwithstanding the contract, Readymix issued a Notice of Termination dated the 23rd June 2015 which purported to terminate the contract. The reason contained in the Notice, the management restructuring exercise, was not one specified under the terms of the contract. Xxxxxxxx asserts that this was not a valid basis for termination and Readymix’s pleaded defence was an afterthought and plain untruths to support a non-existent defence in light of a belated realization that the justification contained in the letter of termination was invalid.
