Cara Shillingford, the lawyer who represented Mariette Warrington in her case against the Dominica Broadcasting Corporation at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) , says she was “always confident” with the case and the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) came as “no surprise.”
This is Shillingford’s first reaction to the ruling of the CCJ who overturned a decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) who had upheld a high court decision that Mariette Warrington was not wrongfully dismissed by the board of the Dominica Broadcasting Station (DBS).
She explained that “This was the first case that I did at the Court of Appeal level in 2013 just after being called to the bar in Dominica. I was confident in that case and after the court ruled, I felt they got it wrong.”
Consequently, she took the matter to the CCJ and according to her, “In Trinidad at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), I felt that I had it right and also was very confident after presenting my case.”
The court awarded interest from the date of the high court decision. So Warrington will be paid the amount that was awarded from the first ruling at the high court plus interest, plus cost.
“It must be noted that this case is much bigger than Mariette Warrington and it affects every single employee in Dominica employed by a state corporation or public authority,” Shillingford stated.
She continued, “Politicians and public authorities cannot simply neglect their duty or decide not to follow the law and legislation and deny citizens their rights as enshrined in the Labour laws of the country.”
She explained that DBS argued that it is the law which required that they (DBS) must get the advice of the Prime Minister before they employed Warrington and they did not get the advice of the prime minister, and so, she was not validly employed.
“I totally disagreed with them…the CCJ disagreed with them also and said that nothing in the law says so. Also, the PM was aware of her employment and gave no instructions,” she said.
“The CCJ also agreed with me that the Labour contract provides protection for Dominicans. I am extremely happy and thankful to God. It’s a well written decision and I am very happy with it and it is one which has far reaching implications for all countries using the CCJ as its final court,” Shillingford stated.
So now the CCJ ruling is good … let me wait
Yes truth said. There goes a Dominican dictator.A carribbean dictator. An EVIL doer for Dominica’s PM.
Ms. Shillingford should be commended and not condemned. The lawyer is competent and confident. There have been case around the world where people have sued and did not benefit a lot monetarily, but many came after and benefitted from the case. A former baseball player sued Major League Baseball claiming that a player should be able to become a free agent and negotiate with a team for what he feels he is worth, he won the case, but did not benefit much from the victory and neither did a former NBA player who sued the league claiming that a person should be able to play professionally even If he only played 1 year of college or no college, if he so desire. He won the case also, but it did not benefit him much either. But look at what is happening now with free agents in terms of free agent status bringing them a lot of money, and students playing one year of college and then going to the NBA and signing for millions.
That is a shallow victory, the money awarded is peanut change; a waste of time, after five years, and you are not talking a six figure amount; it seems to me they gave you a few dollars simply because the CCJ did not want to appear as if they ruled for the government; which is what the actually did!
If you were a good lawyer; you could have asked for punitive damages for Warrington: which could have cost DBS near a million dollars or more, but as everything else where everything is upside down in Dominica, perhaps the legal term “punitive damage” to the injured client does not exists in legal terms in Dominica law!
If this woman was wrongfully fired, it must have caused her some amount of psychological damage, a good lawyer would have zero in on that and take the government to the cleaners: you won the battle a hollow victory , nevertheless; you lost the war!
Wow! To prove punitive damages you would of course have to prove the actual psychological damage. Did the Plaintiff or the party she represented suffer such? The mere fact that the CCJ ruled in the her favor means that she did a great job which can set a precedent for other cases in Dominica. Great job Ms. Shillingford.
This is not about money. It is about justice. Justice was served. That is all.
Psychological damage are easily proved by visiting with a psychiatrists, who would perform different psychological tests which could definitely prove whether or not the victim is simply psychologically depressed, or more severe psychiatric damage was done, as a result of the wrongful dismissal.
Any form of victimization, can indeed cause psychological problems; now to what extent, only a professional practicing psychiatric are able to determine that; its not a job for any simple doctor, even if they are into general practice “General Practitioner.”
That is the job for someone specializing in psychiatry!
In a situation like that punitive damage would be awarded based on the percentage of permanent damage the firing caused her; as far as I am concern we do not know if this lady is more than 60% or less psychology damaged, and have to live with it for the rest of her life after receiving less than a hundred thousand dollars.
If indeed you are Jurisprudence, they should…
Truth said. Mariette has never suffered any damaged. By GOD’S grace she has flourished. She has never had needs for anything. She is a winner.DBS and the prime minister thought they were going to get money from her. We dont care. It could be $1.00 the word is WON.
THANKS FOR THE COMMENT.
Again we see people trying to slant this decision in an anti- government point of view. Congratulations should be extended to Ms Shillingford for showing us how matters are settled in a civilized way, in a civilized country. You have a termination matter with your employer , you do not take it to the streets, you take it to court. You do not turn a legal matter (or religious matter) into a political issue.
Good job Ms Shillingford . You certainly set a president for future generation in the pursuit of justice. Thanks.
As I have proffered many times, Skerrit has a controlling influence on every aspect of governance in Dominica. Check out DBS defence on this issue. This man uses the local corrupt court to deprive citizens of what is rightfully theirs, and as a means of harassment and intimidation. Many more citizens need to stand up to this cowardly bully who uses the State resources to subjugate the people who dare to exercise their inalienable rights: freedom of speech, freedom to decide their own destiny, freedom to have a government of their choice.
Skerrit often invokes the name of God and cites scriptures to curry favor with the people while depriving his brothers and sisters of proper remuneration and dragging them before the corrupt local courts on bogus charges. Hypocrite! Imposter! The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.
It is very wrong to say that Skerrit used the court to deprive anybody of their rights. I would like the lawyer to explain that Miss Warrington admitted to owing DBS over $60 000.00. How does that happen? Further, I would also like the lawyer to explain, how could Miss Warrington who relied on the old contract, expect to get hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer’s money, when the same old contract which they relied on provided for a notice period of 6 months. This is what she was ultimately awarded by the CCJ. So in essence she still owed DBS radio and the tax payers end up paying the legal bills.
@ibo France, let us not forget that it is Skeritt and his labour government that made Dominica part of the CCj. But for the CCJ Miss Warrington might have had to live with the decision of the lower courts as the cost to appeal to her majesty privy council is quite prohibitive. You forgot Skeritt also controls the Privy council as he directed them to rule against Linton in the Pinard Byrnes matter
Anon, I have no problems with the CCJ. Caribbean people need to be disabused of this erroneous notion that foreign and exotic commodities and entities are superior to indigenous ones. I agree with you that the cost to access the Privy Council is quite prohibitive. Many of us get superlative pleasure from bashing our own. Stop your sarcasm (your last sentence).
Oh how the British who left us a good public service system and rules to regulate that system must be laughing at us. Time will tell.
We have a habit of labelling everything like that as colonial and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
In my opinion that was what the CCJ was doing actually. Public corporations and Statutory bodies have specific Acts which regulate them. In my opinion it is a dangerous thing to relegate the Prime Minister’s advice or consent ( no matter who sits in that office) to a mere rubber stamp or something which can be implied or given en passant. The public service was known for having everything in writing, properly recorded and filed.