The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge upheld the Public Hospitals Authority’s (PHA) decision to terminate a contract with a cleaning company, citing underperformance as justification for the termination.

The PHA contracted JN Improvements Limited on March 1, 2016, to provide custodial services for Princess Margaret Hospital until February 28, 2017. After the contract expired, the PHA extended the arrangement month-to-month until July 20, 2017, when then-managing director Mr Herbert Brown terminated the agreement.

JN Improvements argued that Mr Brown lacked the legal authority under the Public Hospitals Authority Act to terminate the contract. It alleged the termination was unauthorised and constituted a breach. It sought a declaration that the termination was unlawful, damages, and clarification of the relevant sections of the Public Hospitals Authority Act.

Nicole Richardson testified on behalf of JN Improvements, noting persistent criticism and alleged bias from PHA officials against the company’s staff and equipment. Shirleymae Forbes, a manager at JN Improvements from February 2016 to July 2017, was responsible for ensuring that all assigned areas at PMH met PHA cleanliness standards.

The PHA presented evidence from multiple witnesses who testified about deficiencies in JN Improvements’ services, including insufficient staffing, inadequate equipment, and improper cleaning practices. PHA claimed extensive efforts were made to improve the claimant’s performance through training sessions and regular meetings, but deficiencies persisted.

Fenton Williams, senior housekeeper operations manager at PMH for ten years, testified that JN Improvements experienced a high staff turnover and struggled with scheduling and supplies, failing to maintain adequate standards.

Senior Justice Deborah Fraser’s judgment said: “During the first evaluation period in April of 2016, the claimant was not performing well, resulting in several in-house training sessions (by PMH staff) to assist with their performance. The issues persisted in addition to the fact that there were rapid turnovers with staff of the claimant.”

Mr Williams said several meetings involving the claimant and the Hospital Administrator took place. He said in these meetings, it was made clear that the services provided by the claimant did not meet the required standards. He said the owners consistently acknowledged their performance shortcomings during these discussions and expressed their intention to improve, yet poor performance continued throughout the contract.

The court found that section 9(2)(a) of the Public Hospitals Authority Act granted Mr Brown broad authority over daily administrative functions, including contract termination. This was supported by PHA’s practice of delegating day-to-day contract management to the Managing Director. 

Based on persistent performance issues, Justice Fraser ruled that JN Improvements’ inadequate staffing, equipment, and service quality constituted a fundamental breach, noting that PHA lawfully terminated the contract. She dismissed JN Improvements’ claim for damages. Both parties were ordered to return any equipment or materials belonging to each other, and JN Improvements was ordered to cover PHA’s legal costs.