Vt10 million claim against PWD dismissed

A local contractors claim worth over Vt10 million against the Department of Public Works (PWD) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court Judge, Mary Sey.

EZ Company Limited (first Claimant) entered into an agreement with PWD to clear road side, patch potholes and re-grade Malekula roads.

The EZ Company Limited and the second claimant, George Lapi who entered into the agreement with PWD on behalf of the company alleged breach of the said agreement in their claim.

Filed in 2013, the claim sought eight different reliefs.

“1. A declaration that the Defendant’s decision to suspend work undertaken by the first Claimant amounts to a breach of contractual obligations;

“2. An order that the Defendant compensates the first Claimant by paying the Claimant the remaining 44 days of the Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions set out therein;

“3. An order that the Defendant pays the Claimant’s loan arrears with Credit Corp;

“4. An order that the Defendant pays to the first Claimant compensatory damages in the amount of Vt6 million;

“5. An order that the Defendant pays the second claimant for compensatory damages in the amount of Vt4 Million;

“6. Interests;

“7. Costs;

“8. Any other orders the Court deems fit.”

In response to the claim, the defense on behalf of the Government explains the Agreement, its full terms and effect.

The contract was for a period of 6 months and a further 2 months period for maintenance. Another argument of the defendant is that the Agreement did not include the Claimants’ loan facility with Credit Corp.

According to Justice Sey’s Judgement, “The Defendant contends that Mr. Lapi commenced work on or about 28 March 2011 and finished on 10 February 2012 and that he exceeded the contract period of maximum 6 months by an additional 5 months.

“Further, that this caused financial constraints to the Defendant as a result of which the Defendant sent a suspension letter dated 20 February 2012 asking Mr. Lapi to cease work.

“In further answer to the Claim, the Defendant says the Claimants breached the Agreement entered into on 25 January 2011 and that the Defendant ended the Claimants’ work for reasons that Mr. Lapi had worked beyond the contract period causing financial constraints to the Defendant and says that the Claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought or to any other reliefs”.

According to evidence from the claimants, the road maintenance was hindered by heavy rain and the Christmas and New Year holidays.

The PWD has also paid for the works done by the claimant.

After discussing the evidences and submissions from both sides, Justice Sey said she finds “that there was justification for the suspension of works — Contract # 113/11/malampa by the Defendant”.

She said she is equally satisfied that the Defendant had not breached the contract and that services rendered by the Claimants were paid for accordingly.

“In the circumstances, the Claimant’s claim fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant on the standard basis to be taxed if not agreed,” Justice Sey concluded.