Justice Diana Insanally yesterday dismissed a constitutional motion filed by Clico (Guyana), paving the way for a long delayed final ruling in the substantive case.
The judge’s ruling was not available yesterday, but she failed to find favour with the arguments raised by Clico (Guyana) about it being denied a “fair hearing” since the company was ordered liquated.
Clico had filed the constitutional writ last year challenging Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang’s decision to rule in the matter and was successful when Justice Franklin Holder granted an order to stay the proceedings for a wind-up until the writ filed by Clico was determined.
Since the company was placed under judicial management and proceedings were initiated in the High Court, Clico has been fighting for what it called a “fair hearing”. The company through its lawyers led by attorney-at-law Roysdale Forde has argued extensively that Clico is still in a position to pursue some lines of insurance business based on the statutory funds.
Forde said yesterday that the case would go back to the Chief Justice for his ruling, but that is provided he is not instructed otherwise by clients.
In the case before Justice Insanally, Clico said its constitutional rights had been breached because Justice Chang failed to grant it a fair hearing. Clico argued that both the application for winding-up and the order placing Clico under judicial management were made without notice to the company.
The company said also that it fears an order for winding-up will result in the likely disposal of its assets. Further, Clico said it has no remedy and cannot be compensated in damages against the judicial manager given that the office carries with it immunity from any action.
Previous Judicial Manager Maria van Beek had said that it was in the best interest of policyholders that the company is wound-up, adding that she would not recommend nor “is it possible” for the company’s business to be compartmentalized and some aspects pursued.
Recently, the Full Court denied an appeal by Clico (Guyana) which had challenged an earlier ruling from the acting Chief Justice on the issue of whether leave was properly granted for the petition to wind-up the company.
