![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Presidential Insurance Company Ltd v Twitz & Anor (Trinidad and Tobago) [2020] UKPC 20 (20 July 2020) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2020/20.html Cite as: [2020] UKPC 20 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2020] UKPC 20
Privy Council Appeal No 0020 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Presidential Insurance Company Ltd (Appellant) v Twitz and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)
From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago |
before
Lord Hodge Lord Lloyd-Jones Lord Briggs Lord Hamblen Lord Burrows
|
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON |
|
|
20 July 2020 |
|
|
Heard on 1 July 2020 |
Appellant |
|
1st Respondent |
Ravi Rajcoomar |
|
Ronnie Vinda Persad |
Shaun V Teekasingh |
|
Shawn A Roopnarine |
|
|
Renaldo Paul |
|
|
Shanta A K Balgobin |
(Instructed by Sperrin Law) |
|
(Instructed by Roopnarine & Co) |
Respondents:
(1) Emily Twitz (Representative Claimant of the Estate of Kerwin Tenia)
[(2) [Dexter Ramphal]
LORD HODGE:
5. Mr Rajcoomar, on behalf of the insurance company, bravely sought to persuade the Board that it should hear an appeal against the findings of fact, notwithstanding the Board’s practice that it will decline to interfere with concurrent findings of pure fact, save in very limited circumstances: Devi v Roy [1946] AC 508. The Board has reiterated its practice in several appeals. See, for example, Central Bank of Ecuador v Conticorp SA [2015] UKPC 11; [2016] BCLC 26, paras 4-8; Desir v Alcide [2015] UKPC 24, paras 24-26, and Al Sadik v Investcorp Bank BSC [2018] UKPC 15, paras 43 and 45.
Conclusion