The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has rejected a former grocery store worker’s request for an interim payment of up to $70,000 ahead of his upcoming trial against AML Foods Limited, ruling that substantial factual disputes make the case unsuitable for pretrial relief.

Justice Camille Darville-Gomez delivered the ruling on March 20, just under two weeks before the trial is set to begin. Brindel Pratt, a former employee of AML Foods, alleges that he suffered serious back injuries in 2019 after stepping into a hole while unloading a container at the rear dock of the company’s Super Centre location.

Mr Pratt sought an interim payment under Part 17.15(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows such payments only if a judge is satisfied that a claimant would obtain a judgment against the defendant for a substantial amount of money at trial. His legal team argued that the company failed to maintain a safe workspace and that the loading dock was in disrepair — claims they said were corroborated by photographs and witness testimony.

In support of his application, Mr Pratt cited a report from a treating physician, Dr Charles Rahming, and asked the court to take judicial notice of AML’s financial capacity based on its publicly reported revenue and profits.

However, AML Foods denied liability and presented a conflicting version of events. The company claimed that Mr Pratt fell not on the loading dock, but while crossing a portable metal ramp leading into a refrigerated container. Their defence also challenged the admissibility of the photographs offered by Mr Pratt and questioned the credibility of his injuries, noting that he allegedly continued to work after the fall and showed no immediate signs of pain or distress.

The judge concluded that the case was “rife with substantial dispute” about the facts and the location of the accident — matters that could only be resolved by cross-examination at trial. She emphasised that interim payment procedures are inappropriate where the underlying facts are sharply contested, citing legal precedent from both Bahamian and English courts.

“I am not satisfied that the claimant would actually succeed in his claim and, as a result, would obtain a substantial amount of money,” Justice Darville-Gomez wrote.

She referred to Schott Kem Ltd v Bentley and Joseph Pinder v Trishnell Wetherill, both of which underscore the importance of avoiding so-called “mini-trials” at the interim stage. The judge also pointed to the proximity of the full trial, which is set to begin on March 31 and continue on April 1, as further reason to deny the application.

In his application, Mr Pratt had also argued that the company’s financial capacity to pay was clear, citing AML’s reported $191 million in revenue and $4.9 million in profits. While the judge acknowledged that AML’s resources were not in dispute, she said this alone did not satisfy the legal threshold for granting an interim payment.

The court awarded costs to AML Foods, ordering the company to submit a schedule of its legal fees within 30 days unless the parties reach an agreement beforehand.