Darren Singh v LMCS Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 5
Renraw Investments Limited and others v Real Time Systems Limited (Trinidad & Tobago)
13 November 2023
[2023] UKPC 39
Privy Council
A company sued someone for money, claiming it was a loan. A lower court said it was a political donation, but the highest court in the UK said the first court was right; it was a loan, and the money must be paid back.
Key Facts
- •Real Time Systems Ltd (claimant) sued Renraw Investments Ltd, CCAM and Co Ltd, and Jack Austin Warner (defendants) to recover TT$1,505,493.
- •The defendants admitted receiving the money but claimed it was a political donation to the UNC, while the claimant argued it was a loan.
- •The trial judge found in favor of the claimant, ruling the payment a loan.
- •The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, concluding the payment was a political donation based on its assessment of the evidence.
- •The claimant appealed to the Privy Council, arguing the trial judge's findings were justified and there was no apparent bias.
- •The central dispute revolved around whether TT$1,505,493 was a loan or a political donation.
- •Evidence included contemporaneous emails between Mr. Lalla (claimant's agent) and Mr. Warner (defendant's agent), witness statements, and trial testimony.
Legal Principles
Test for appellate court interference with trial judge's factual findings: Material error of law, critical finding without evidentiary basis, misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence. Intervention only if the decision is unjustifiable.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
Test for apparent bias: Whether a fair-minded and informed observer, considering the facts, would conclude a real possibility of bias existed.
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
Outcomes
Privy Council allowed the claimant's appeal.
The Court of Appeal incorrectly interfered with the trial judge's factual findings. The identified errors did not meet the threshold for appellate intervention. The judge's comments on campaign finance did not demonstrate apparent bias.
Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge made material errors in his analysis of the evidence and concluded that the payment was a political donation.