Derek Achong

Three ap­pel­late judges will de­cide on Thurs­day whether five Cli­co Ex­ec­u­tive Flex­i­ble Pre­mi­um An­nu­ity (EF­PA) pol­i­cy­hold­ers are en­ti­tled to pre-emp­tive le­gal costs in the on­go­ing bid to re­cov­er their in­vest­ments from the fi­nan­cial­ly trou­bled con­glom­er­ate. Jus­tices Wen­dell Kan­ga­loo, Humphrey Stollmey­er and Gre­go­ry Smith yes­ter­day heard sev­er­al hours of le­gal sub­mis­sions from at­tor­neys rep­re­sent­ing the pol­i­cy­hold­ers, Cli­co, the Cen­tral Bank and the State. On March 29, Jus­tice Devin­dra Ram­per­sad, pre­sid­ing in the Port-of-Spain High Court, re­ject­ed the group's ap­pli­ca­tion in which they asked to be paid out of the Statu­to­ry Fund to pur­sue their lit­i­ga­tion fur­ther. The pol­i­cy­hold­ers ap­pealed the de­ci­sion, through their at­tor­ney, Se­nior Coun­sel Dr Claude Den­bow, and are chal­leng­ing Ram­per­sad's find­ings un­der Sec­tions 40 and 115 of the In­sur­ance Act.

The pol­i­cy­hold­ers-Per­cy Far­rell, Ma­ri­na In­als­ingh, re­tired UWI pro­fes­sor Gor­don Rohlehr, David Day­al and Michael Alexan­der-con­tend that Jus­tice Ram­per­sad erred when con­sid­er­ing the leg­is­la­tion. The Gov­ern­ment es­tab­lished the fund af­ter the com­pa­ny's col­lapse in 2009. While mak­ing sub­mis­sions, Se­nior Coun­sel Regi­nald Ar­mour, rep­re­sent­ing the Cen­tral Bank, de­scribed the pol­i­cy­hold­ers' ap­pli­ca­tion for pre-emp­tive costs as mis­con­ceived. Ar­mour told the three-mem­ber pan­el the cost should not be al­lowed, since the pol­i­cy­hold­ers' case was "hos­tile lit­i­ga­tion." The State's lawyer in the mat­ter, British Queen's Coun­sel Al­lan New­man, al­so op­posed the ap­pli­ca­tion, claim­ing the group was seek­ing an im­prac­ti­cal or­der from the court. Neil Bis­nath, who is ap­pear­ing for Cli­co, ex­pressed sim­i­lar sen­ti­ments and al­so sub­mit­ted that the or­der should not be grant­ed.