Senior Reporter
jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt
Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and Ricky Rahim have reserved judgment in an expedited appeal brought by Republic Bank Limited (RBL), which is challenging a High Court ruling ordering it to compensate a former employee following a 2022 break-in at its Couva branch.
The panel heard submissions from Senior Counsel Kerwyn Garcia, who appeared for the bank, and attorney Kiel Taklalsingh, who represented former employee Curtis Mathura.
In October 2024, Justice Carol Gobin ruled in favour of Mathura, finding that the bank’s security systems fell below the required standard of care after he lost approximately $300,000 in jewellery and foreign currency stored in his safety deposit box.
Mathura, who worked with RBL for nearly 31 years before retiring, had maintained a safety deposit box at the Couva branch since 2013. He stored jewellery, including irreplaceable family heirlooms from his parents and grandparents, as well as foreign currency.
Between May 29 and 30, 2022, intruders drilled a hole through a wall of the bank and accessed several safety deposit boxes, including Mathura’s. No one has been charged in connection with the incident. Mathura filed suit after the bank denied liability and refused compensation.
In his appeal submissions, Garcia argued that Gobin was “manifestly wrong” in her findings. He contended that the extraordinary nature of the break-in was not the proper test for determining whether the bank exercised ordinary care.
Garcia submitted that RBL had implemented multiple layers of security, including motion sensors and CCTV systems, thereby meeting the contractual obligation to provide a secure environment.
Addressing evidence that a plastic bag had been placed over a surveillance camera for more than 24 hours without detection, Garcia said continuous live monitoring was not contractually promised. He argued that CCTV footage was reviewed after an alarm was triggered and, since no alarm was activated, this did not establish that the system was flawed.
He further submitted that the installation of additional cameras after the heist did not amount to an admission that the prior system was inadequate, but rather reflected enhanced precautionary measures.
Taklalsingh, however, maintained that the length of time the intruders operated undetected demonstrated a failure to meet the standard of ordinary care and due diligence.
He argued that the thieves were able to cover a camera, use high-powered tools to bore through concrete, access the vault, and exit the premises—all over a period of roughly 28 hours—without detection.
Responding to questions from the bench, Taklalsingh said the $200 annual security fee paid for the safety deposit box created a reasonable expectation that the bank was providing security for customers’ belongings. He added that insurance coverage was merely suggested, not contractually required.
While acknowledging that employees activated the bank’s security system, including motion sensors, Taklalsingh said that was insufficient if intruders were able to remain inside the building from about 1 am on Sunday until 5 am the following day without being detected.
The judges indicated that the matter is significant and said a written judgment would be delivered as soon as possible.
Mathura is also represented by attorneys Stefan Ramkissoon, Rajiv Sochan and Matthew Allahar. Garcia was assisted by attorneys Tonya Rowley and Hillary Muddeen on behalf of RBL.
