Super Industrial Services Ltd and another v National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd

Under the Civil Proceedings Rules, a claimant must apply for a case management conference date if the court office has not fixed one within the prescribed period. Failure automatically strikes out the claim, even where interim proceedings are pending or the judge has exercised some case-management powers. The court’s power to dispense with a case management conference is distinct and requires the directions and timetable specified by rule 27.4. Any implication that a conference occurred, was dispensed with, or that the sanction was lifted requires necessity and will not lightly be made. The sanction remains subject to the specific relief regime in rule 27.3(5) and (6).

National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd brought proceedings against Super Industrial Services Ltd and Rain Forest Resorts Ltd seeking declarations and orders setting aside security transactions, together with freezing and injunctive relief. Defences were filed on 22 February 2016. No case management conference was fixed while interim applications were adjourned and settlement discussions continued.

Charles J held that no automatic strike-out had occurred and later directed that a case management conference take place. The Court of Appeal, by majority, reversed that conclusion. The central issue before the Board was whether rule 27.3(4) applied despite the pending interim proceedings and the judge’s earlier case-management activity, and what procedural course should follow concerning relief from sanctions.

Appeal dismissed. The Board held that the claim was automatically struck out under rule 27.3(4), 42 days after the filing of the defences, on 4 April 2016, subject to any application for relief from sanctions.

1. The case management conference was the central event in the Trinidad and Tobago procedural code. It integrated individual case management with court-wide case-flow management, and ordinarily resulted in a trial date or window and a full timetable for preparation. A claim was not intended to proceed significantly beyond the exchange of statements of case and defences without such an event, unless the court ordered otherwise.
2. The duty under rule 27.3(3) was deliberately inflexible where the court office had failed to fix a conference. Pending interim applications, previous adjournments, settlement negotiations, or the judge’s exercise of some case-management powers did not create an implied exception. Rule 17.7 conferred a discretion to exercise case-management powers at an interim hearing; it imposed no duty to do so.
3. Dispensing with a case management conference under rule 27.4 required the court to give written directions, set a timetable to trial, deal with any pre-trial review, and fix a trial date or window. Charles J had not done so when adjourning the interim applications. Her later directions were preparatory only, since she fixed a future case management conference.
4. The Board distinguished Estate Management and Business Development Co Ltd v Saiscon Ltd (Civil Appeal No P104 of 2016 (unreported)). That decision concerned when an already scheduled first conference ended; it did not mean that the events in this case had scheduled a conference before the sanction arose.
5. The Board did not determine the merits of relief from sanctions. The appropriate course was to leave NGC to its fresh application dated 27 March 2017, consistently with the limitation of its appeal to the automatic-strike-out issue.

1. High Court of Trinidad and Tobago: Charles J held that the claim had not been automatically struck out and directed that a case management conference take place on 14 February 2017.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: By majority, the court held that the claim had been automatically struck out. The question of relief from sanctions was not determined.
3. Privy Council: The appeal was dismissed. The Board left NGC to pursue its fresh application for relief from sanctions.