Derek Achong
The Court of Appeal has suggested that attorneys for the State and a Strategic Services Agency (SSA) employee, who was injured after falling on the job, engage in discussions as she can no longer pursue a lawsuit over the incident due to a procedural issue.
Appellate Judges Nolan Bereaux and Charmaine Pemberton gave the suggestion yesterday as they dismissed Candice Hoyte’s appeal over a trial judge’s refusal to allow her pursue her lawsuit against the SSA.
“I am not saying accept liability, I was careful not to say that, but meet and speak,” Pemberton said as she noted that the suggestion should not be misconstrued as the court upholding Hyote’s substantive case.
Bereaux supported his colleague as he noted that although Hoyte’s injuries were serious, she cannot refile the case as it went beyond the statutory four-year limitation period for bringing lawsuits against the State.
“Let’s see what we can do then,” Bereaux said.
In the appeal, Hoyte’s attorneys were contending that the trial judge, who handled Hoyte’s case, got it wrong when she ruled that she (Hoyte) could not sue the SSA as it is not a distinct corporate entity.
The appeal panel agreed with the judge’s findings on the issue.
However, Bereaux and Pemberton did agree to uphold the State’s counter appeal against the judge’s corresponding ruling that the SSA was not an agent of the State and could not be sued through the Office of the Attorney General.
Presenting submissions on behalf of the SSA on the issue in March, State attorney Randal Hector claimed that while the SSA did not have a legal personality, the national security entity performed core functions of the Government.
He admitted that because it had the power to infringe on citizens’ constitutional rights, the Government worked closely with it.
Hoyte was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, and Clay Hackett while Cherise Nixon, Tracy Vidale and Kendra Mark represented the SSA.