Unwarranted delay is the main reason suggested by State attorneys opposed to several applications by the Highway Re-route Movement to amend its case challenging the Debe to Mon Desir segment of the Pt Fortin Highway.Senior Counsel Russell Martineau raised the issue of the delay as he made submissions on the procedural applications before Justice James Aboud in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday.
In one of the applications the group is attempting to tender into evidence the contents of a report on the highway prepared by a group of professionals led by former Independent Senator James Armstrong, while in another it seeks to join to the lawsuit five people whose properties are in the path of the highway.In the third application, the group, led by environmentalist Dr Wayne Kublalsingh, is seeking to have the lawsuit deemed a "representative or class" action.
While addressing Aboud yesterday, Martineau questioned the timing of the applications, saying they could have been made shortly after the lawsuit was filed in August 2012."When you come with these amendments you have to do so promptly," Martineau said, dealing with the application to include additional parties.
He said if the group was allowed to make the amendments it would further delay the case as State representatives would have to investigate the individual claims of each proposed resident."We are not saying you can't join, but why five?" Martineau said.
In response the group's attorney Rishi Dass dismissed Martineau's claim as a "non-issue," although he admitted the decision was sparked by a recent development in the case when the State told the group it had adjusted the route of the highway to avoid the lands of three of the six claimants currently listed in the lawsuit.
In opposing the Armstrong report, Martineau also referred to a decision delivered by Aboud earlier this month when he refused to grant the group an interim injunction stopping construction work on the highway.In that decision, Aboud acknowledged that there was some merit in the group's claims but said he could not grant the injunction because of the group's delay in applying for the interim relief. Aboud's ruling on the injunction is currently being appealed by both parties, with a hearing fixed by the Appeal Court on June 9.
Martineau referenced a preliminary point Aboud made on the Armstrong report, when he ruled that while the group had a legitimate expection that the report would be considered, the Government gave them no guarantee that it would abide by it.This claim was also dismissed by Dass, who noted that Aboud's statement was a preliminary observation that had no bearing on the substantive lawsuit.The attorneys will continue their submissions on June 10.