Accident: Rs 23 Million in Damages to Parents for Shabana Patel

12 years, 5 months ago - 24 May 2012, Le Matinal

Shabana Patel, who became disabled because a road accident that occurred on 13 August 2002 in Bamboo, and her parents are entitled to damages amounting to Rs 23,195,727 that Justice Rehana Mungly-Gulbul had their granted September 5, 2008 after a trial in Supreme Court.

Judges Keshoe Parsad Matadeen and Saheed Bhaukaurally severely censured by the Law Lords

The Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of London, in fact, returned the verdict of the judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul that the appellate court had reversed 18 November 2010.

Thus the defendants Anandsing Beenessreesing, owner of the car involved in the accident and the insurance company SICOM Ltd will have to pay damages of Rs 23,195,727 and interest to Patel.

The judges of the appellate court Keshoe Parsad Matadeen and Saheed Bhaukaurally, which had reduced the amount of damages to only Rs 9.85 million, were severely censured by the five Law Lords for their decision ...

And for the considerable delay to pronounce their judgment. In this case Lord Sumption points out that the delay in this case at the court of appeal was not raised during the discussion but this is something he considers "unsatisfactory". He recalled that the appeals of the verdict of the judge-Gulbul Mungly Rehana were initiated September 23, 2008.

Judges Matadeen and Bhaukaurally have heard counsel for various parties on 23 and 24 March 2009. And it is only November 18, 2010, 20 months after they made their judgment reducing the amount of damages awarded to the parents of the victim. He regretted that in such cases of 'hardship' judges took so long to make their decision.

" In a case like this, where the evidence showed that the delay in recovering compensation had caused significant hardship to the Plaintiffs, this is very unfortunate. The long gap between argument and judgment on the appeal may also explain, at least in part, why the Court of Appeal’s treatment of the issues differed so markedly from the basis on which the case was argued" writes Lord Sumption.

Finally, the Judicial Committee said that it is only in cases of difficult or complex that the verdict in an appellate court can be reserved for a period exceeding three months. "In the Board's opinion it is only in The Most difficulties and complex boxes jugement That year we appeal Should Be reserved for more Than Three months, and intervals of six months more Than Should Be altogether exceptional", concluded Lord Sumption.