The Evidence. 27. At the trial the Court heard evidence from Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (Claimant), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (the Second Defendant) and Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (the Fourth Defendant).
The Evidence. 2. The claimant gave evidence by filing a witness statement, and issued witness summonses to two other witnesses to give evidence on his behalf: (i) Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, past President of the Mayaro/Sangre Grande Taxi Association and (ii) Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Acting Deputy Trade Officer. The claimant averred that at the time of entering the agreement in November 2015, he had notified the defendant, orally, that the Voxy was for commercial purposes and, specifically, would be used as a taxi along the Mayaro/Sangre Grande route. Subsequently, on 8 January 2016, he secured his taxi badge, which was valid for three years. The claimant attested that based on the terms of the written agreement, he ought to have received the Voxy on 19 January 2016. The Voxy actually arrived into the country on 19 February 2016, approximately one month after the contractually agreed time, and was licensed as HDM 791. Further, its release was delayed owing to a change in government policy1 on importation of vehicles, sometime in January 2016, among other factors. These changes included a reduction in the age limit of vehicles that could be imported from six years to four years. Given the importation date, it meant that the defendant had to secure an import licence for the Voxy. He affirmed that he was aware that the defendant had applied for an import licence for the Voxy and obtained approval on 10 March 2016. Sometime in May 2016, the claimant was informed that the registered Voxy was ready to be delivered to him and that his outstanding balance was $63,667.00.
The Evidence. 7. The Claimant relied on the evidence of Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. The Defendant relied on the evidence of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx.
The Evidence. 15. At the trial, the Claimant was cross examined. No witness on behalf of the Defendant gave evidence.
The Evidence. 22. The Claimant called one witness, Xx. Xxxx Xxxxxxx whose witness statement was filed on the 8th July 2011. Both Defendants relied on one witness, the Second Defendant, Xxx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx. Her evidence in chief was contained in her witness statement which was filed on the 8th July 2011.
The Evidence. 11. The defendant’s witness statement having been struck out, the only evidence was that of the first claimant.
The Evidence. On Behalf of the Plaintiff 11 Xx Xxxxxxxx was the first witness called by the plaintiff. He is and was at all material times the sole director of Kallenia. He has known Xx Xxxxx since about 1992. He said that in 1997, at Xxxxxxxx's request, Xxxxx agreed to make an application for the grant of an exploration licence over ground in which Richmond, as a director of Kallenia, had an interest. The reason that he asked Xxxxx to make the application in Xxxxx'x name was that Xxxxxxxx believed that any application made in his name or in the name of Xxxxxxxx for the grant of a mining tenement would attract objections merely as a consequence of having been made in the name of either himself or Xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxx said that it was agreed between himself and Xxxxx that if a tenement was granted, Xxxxx would hold it on trust for both Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx; Xxxxx having a 10 per cent beneficial interest and Xxxxxxxx having a 90 per cent beneficial interest. He said that it was agreed that, on behalf of Kallenia, Xxxxxxxx was to pay all fees charged by the Mines Department for lodgment of the application. Xxxxxxxx gave evidence about having received from Xxxxx copies of documents, being forms prescribed for purposes of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (“the Act”) and the Mining Regulations 1981(“the Regulations”) which had all been signed by Xxxxx in connection with the application for the exploration licence. Those documents were a withdrawal form showing Xxxxx as being the applicant in respect of E80/2350 and describing the interest being transferred as "Exploration Licence 80/2350", a surrender form showing the details of the mining tenement as "Exploration Licence 80/2350" and showing the holder as being Xxxxx. Each of those three documents had been signed by a witness. The documents were produced in evidence. The documents had only been signed by Xxxxx and the witnesses thereto. Both Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx (when he gave evidence later) were uncertain and unclear as to precisely when those documents had been given to Richmond. I perceived the evidence of both of them, however, as being to the effect that it was the intention of both Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx that, by the giving of those documents to Richmond, the future control of the application for the grant of the tenement and of any tenement granted as a consequence of the application having been made would pass to, and remain with, Richmond. 12 It was common ground that at the time when application E80/2350 was lodged by Xxxxx, namely,...
The Evidence. 10. The defendant called four witnesses including himself – Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Andomida Massiah Boochoon. Their witness statements were tendered as evidence in chief and they were cross examined. The Third party called Xxxxxxx Xxxxx. His witness statement filed on September 23, 2011 was put into evidence. He was not cross examined.
The Evidence. The Panel reviewed the following statements submitted by the parties: Applicants' Statement and Book of Documents; Statement of O.J. Pipelines Inc.; Statement of Respondents, Xxxxx Xxxxx and G & S Tractor Service Ltd.; Statement of Pepsi-Cola Canada Limited/Hostess Food Products Limited operating as The Hostess Frito-Lay Company; Statement of the Respondent, Progressive Insurance Company and Book of Authorities; Supplementary Statement of the Respondents, Xxxxx Xxxxx and G & S Tractor Services Ltd. The Panel also received a copy of the October 20, 1992, correspondence from X. Xxxxxx to the parties, with attachments. We also reviewed the following correspondence: June 8, 1992, letter from X. Xxxxxxxx to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal; July 17, 1992, letter from X. Xxxxxx to the Workers' Compensation Board; July 17, 1992, letter from X. Xxxxxx to the parties; August 17, 1992, letter from the WCB to X. Xxxxxx; September 17, 1992, letter from X. Xxxxxxxx to the Appeals Tribunal; September 28, 1992, letter from X. Xxxxxx to the parties. At the hearing, the following documents were received as exhibits: Exhibit #1: operating agreement between Hostess Frito-Lay and G & S Tractor Service Ltd. for the period January 1, 1992, to June 30, 1993; Exhibit #2: application for employment completed by Xxxxx Xxxxx dated June 25, 1990; Exhibit #3: Operating Engineers Mainline Pipeline Agreement for Canada, May 1, 1989; Exhibit #4: summary of hours worked by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1990; Exhibit #5: registration for employment, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, submitted by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx on December 5, 1990. At the hearing, Xx. Xxxxxx also submitted the unsworn affidavit of Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, signed October 26, 1992. The Panel heard testimony under oath from Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, president of G & S Tractor, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, director of safety and environment, O.J. Pipelines, and from Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, president, Local 793, International Union of Operating Engineers. Submissions were made by Xx. Xxxxx, Xx. Xxxx, Xx. Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx.
The Evidence. The claimants’ evidence 2 Paragraph 4 In support of its claim the claimants filed witness statements from 5 witnesses namely: