The evidence. Both in Italo-Romance and in Sardinian the existential construc- tion consists of four components, which are illustrated in (8a-c).
The evidence. The claimants’ evidence 2 Paragraph 4 In support of its claim the claimants filed witness statements from 5 witnesses namely:
The evidence. 10. The defendant called four witnesses including himself – Subhas Seepersad, Dev Anand Seepersad, Shivai Ramlogan and Andomida Massiah Boochoon. Their witness statements were tendered as evidence in chief and they were cross examined. The Third party called Sheldon Blugh. His witness statement filed on September 23, 2011 was put into evidence. He was not cross examined.
The evidence. [22] Paragraph 3 of the statement of claim contains the only reference to a loan and is set out above in para. 2 of this Judgment. The breach of this loan is not expressly pleaded anywhere in the statement of claim. In the “Reply”, the claimant pleads: “On the 27th of October 2000, the first named defendant informed the claimant that the second named defendant would service the loan. No payments were made and the loan fell into arrears again”. In relation to the adequacy of the pleadings are these two references sufficient to satisfy the rule 8 of the CPR 2000 bearing in mind also, the overriding objectives? Does it disclose the terms of the loan agreement, the circumstances that the agreement provides as amounting to a breach, the conditions under which the Defendant becomes liable, the conditions under which the Claimant can seek to recover from the Defendant and so on?
The evidence. (i) The plaintiff’s case 33 The plaintiff called one witness for its case while three persons testified for the defendant including Mr Ahmad and an expert. Initially, Mr Casimir had filed his affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) preparatory to being the Plaintiff’s witness. However, the court was informed by counsel of the Plaintiff that the defendant’s counsel (who confirmed) would not cross-examine Mr Casimir on his AEIC – which was then admitted as part of the evidence before the court.35 34 The plaintiff’s witness Mr Ow Yong is the current chairman of the Eighth MC. The facts extracted from Mr Ow Yong’s AEIC have been set out earlier at [2] to [21]. 33 See Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No. 1) at paras 23–24. 34 See Reply and Defence to Counterclaim at para 9. 35 See transcript of 7 July 2021 at pp 170–171. 35 During Mr Ow Yong’s cross-examination, Mr J Balachandran, counsel for the defendant (“Mr Bala”), took issue with Mr Ow Yong’s AEIC where Mr Ow Yong had deposed that in July 2014 the plaintiff discovered the disconnection of the Grease Trap installation.36 When questioned, Mr Ow Yong clarified that the discovery was made by Goodwill who informed Vinco who in turn informed the MC.37 36 The defendant also took issue with Goodwill’s documents that were incorporated into the agreed bundles placed before the court – the defendant would not agree to the authenticity of those documents, including Goodwill’s report (mentioned above at [12]), without formal proof. In the defendant’s closing submissions, it was submitted that Goodwill’s report was inadmissible as the maker was not called to testify.38 Mr Bala had pointed out to Mr Ow Yong that there were no service reports that recorded Goodwill’s visit to the Grease Trap on 17 July 2014 when Goodwill allegedly flushed out the grease trap nor of Goodwill’s visit on 12 August 2014 to install a sump pump.39 Indeed, there were no records of Goodwill’s representative Mr Kenny Pang’s visit to JFH on 17 July 2014.