Key Facts
- •Trinsalvage Enterprises Ltd (Trinsalvage) performed work and supplied materials for the San Fernando Harbour Development Project – Phase 1.
- •A contract was purportedly entered into with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Works and Transport, exceeding the Permanent Secretary's authority under the Central Tenders Board Act.
- •The Ministry paid the original contract price but refused to pay for extra work and materials.
- •Trinsalvage claimed $4,997,021.47 plus VAT for the extra work and materials.
- •The contract was deemed void due to lack of authority and/or being ultra vires, not illegality.
Legal Principles
A claim in unjust enrichment will be defeated if it stultifies the policy of a relevant statute.
Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank
Restitutionary claim in unjust enrichment requires: (1) defendant's enrichment; (2) enrichment at claimant's expense; (3) unjust factor.
Benedetti v Sawiris; Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs; Samsoondar v Capital Insurance Co Ltd; Barton v Morris
Central Tenders Board Act (CTBA) grants the CTB sole authority to contract on behalf of the Government for contracts above a certain value.
Central Tenders Board Act (Trinidad and Tobago)
Contracts void for lack of authority or ultra vires, not illegality, can still be subject to unjust enrichment claims unless stultifying statutory policy.
SR Projects Ltd v Rampersad
In unjust enrichment, valuation starts with objective market rate, not contract price.
Benedetti v Sawiris
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Allowing the unjust enrichment claim would not stultify the policy of the CTBA. The claim is for objective market value, not contract price, preventing exploitation of a good bargain or recouping kickbacks. There was no evidence of Trinsalvage's knowledge of the Permanent Secretary's lack of authority or collusion.
Dissenting opinion: Appeal should be allowed.
Granting the unjust enrichment remedy stultifies the CTBA's purpose by undermining the CTB's exclusive authority to choose contractors. Even with transparency in the tendering process, the government's direct choice of contractor undermines the competitive market intended by the Act.