A minor clerical misdescription appears in the court Order

Dear Editor,

I see that Justice Claudette Singh has joined the masquerade. She firstly contends that the Conservatory Order, which prevents members of the GPF and SOCU from seizing the books, expired 14 days after it was granted. That is not the case. It was to expire after 14 days but before the 14 days expired, the life of the Order was extended. To date it remains in force.

The distinguished former jurist next argues that the Order speaks to “Commmonwealth Law Reports” but that the books that are the subject of the dispute are “Law Reports of the Commonwealth”. She further points out that CLR is published out of Australia and LRC is published by Lexis-Nexis, UK. These are facts which I do not dispute.

However, from the inception, it has been very clear that it is only one set of books which have been the subject of the controversy: LRC published by Lexis-Nexis to which I have been subscribing since about 2003. I do not own and have never dealt with CRL.

When the application was made to the court for the Conservatory Oder it was only one set of books that were the subject of the application and the consequential Order: LRC. When the court granted that Order it did so with the intent of preserving in my possession only one set of books: LRC.

The other side filed an affidavit in answer and made copious legal submissions but not once took the objection that the Order was unclear or ambiguous. In fact, based upon their affidavits and submissions, they knew clearly that the books which were the subject of the Order and the application are LRC; not a word about CLR.

It is clear, therefore, that a minor and clerical misdescription appears in the Order which is now being used to avoid the Order. This amounts to gross disrespect for the Chief Justice and her Order.

Chief Justice Sir Hugh Wooding of Trinidad &Tobago once said: “The law is not a game, nor is the court an arena; the attainment of true justice is over the highway of realities and not through the alley of technicalities.”

The law always had the power to correct such minor errors so that its majesty and justice prevail in the end. It will happen in this case.

Yours faithfully, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP