The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

PROCEEDINGS in the legal battle between a Kerzner International affiliate and a former employee over the alleged theft of $320,000 intensified yesterday when the plaintiff asked for permission to amend their statement of claim.

Ferron Bethell, who represents Island Hotel Company Ltd (the plaintiff) in their law suit against Monteigne Cunningham and Franklyn Moss over an alleged seven-year embezzling scheme, asked the court to allow 29 disputed cheques to be allowed in as part of their evidence.

In a writ of summons brought against the two defendants by IHC in August 2011, the hotel company not only sought damages on those claims, but also an account of all monies received, a payment of $320,521 with interest, costs, and other relief.

The plaintiffs rely on signed cheque requests and witness statements, including one from Cunningham who, the plaintiffs argue, voluntarily confessed to the 2001-2008 scheme.

Cunningham claims she was detained in a conference room on June 4, 2008 from 9.30am to 5.10pm without food, water, or access to a lawyer before being arrested by police.

Moss claims he has done nothing wrong.

Yesterday, Mr Bethell said that while 16 of the disputed cheques had not been found but verified in statements, numbers on the other 12 disputed cheques had been incorrectly transposed due to human error arising from dealing with over 200 documented transactions.

The last cheque, he told Justice Rhonda Bain, had not been included, by mistake, in the document bundle supplied to the court.

Romona Farquharson-Seymour, Cunningham’s attorney, objected to the application on the basis that it would do violence and prejudice to her client at this stage of the proceedings.

The attorney noted that it was defence counsel, and not the plaintiffs themselves, who pointed out the errors.

She reasoned that if the court was minded to grant the plaintiff’s application for leave to make the amendment, then the first defendant should be allowed an adjournment and leave to do the same for her counter-claim.

She also asked that costs be awarded to her client, who could not be held accountable for the mistakes of the plaintiff.

Mr Bethell replied that counsel for the first defendant appeared to have misunderstood what the case was about, as the plaintiff had produced documents attempting to prove embezzlement.

As for the errors, “in a paper-intensive matter, things like this happen”.

“There is no prejudice to the defendant,” he submitted to the court, emphasising that “we are here for justice”.

But Mrs Farquharson-Seymour replied that Mr Bethell appeared to be “speaking on both sides of his mouth”.

“He is speaking of justice and yet there are transposing of numbers?” she asked before stating that justice existed not solely for one side “but for all”.

Justice Bain said she would make a decision following the lunch break.

She returned to rule that the 12 cheques containing errors would be allowed in, but the other 17 would not.

The court, having also considered the medical issues of a defence witness, granted leave for the first defendant to make amendments to their counter-claim based on the amendments by the plaintiff.

Justice Bain awarded $1,500 in costs to the first defendant, which the plaintiff must pay on or before January 14, 2014 while the trial was adjourned to July 2 and 3, 2014.

The question of how much of the $320,521 total is left following the amendments will be considered today.