The Tribune

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

A TEXACO retailer said yesterday that while he had no intentions of resisting a court order which paved the way for his forced exit from the petroleum retail business after 23 years, "the war was just getting started."

Raymond Claridge, operator of Claridge Service Centre at the corner of Mackey and Madeira Streets, told the Tribune that Chevron's failure to uphold its end of the deal and maintain his station's operating condition led to a downturn in business. This he alleged was part of an attempt to get him out of the station. Chevron issued Mr Claridge a termination letter in August 2011. The matter reached the Court of Appeal where it was determined that the nature of the contract entitled Texaco to the eviction.

"I'm down but I'm not dead. They've won the first battle but the war is just getting started. I will carry that until my grave, until I get some help not for myself but for the rest of the dealers and the country as a whole."

Claridge told Tribune Business: "I have no intentions of going against the court order and I will be vacating at the 30th of this month. At that stage I am morally and legally responsible for my staff's severance pay and I'm now having to go out and borrow an additional $40,000 for that."

Having been frustrated by the whole process Claridge said: "I really don't want to do business with these people any more. All I want out of them now is to pay me enough financial compensation so that I can cover some of my losses and compensate my staff." Mr Claridge said that he will continue to lobby for the protection of petroleum retailers from big oil companies. Mr Claridge said that he while he had met with executives of the new distributor Rubis in an effort to seek and have the situation resolved the company indicated that while it sympathised with his plight, it would follow through with the court order.

Stewart Gill, general manager of Rubis's western Caribbean operations told Tribune Business that he was aware of Mr Claridge's plight, having met with him, reviewed the matter and visited his station. Mr Gill said: "I would say our hands were tied given the stage that we entered the situation Had I been afforded the opportunity to have been involved earlier, personally I may have chosen a different course. At the stage at which we entered the situation, having taken legal advice, the best course of action for the company was to see the ruling of the court through. We truly sympathise with Mr Claridge, we appreciate his years of service and wish him well."