Singh letter distinguishes VAMED ruling’s basis from its claimed effects
In a letter published by the Guyana Times, Hargesh B Singh says the Full Court set aside preservation orders because they conflicted with the trial judge’s findings. He separately describes the practical effects as allowing state possession of hospital sites and equipment and safeguarding €30 million in performance bonds; he also reports a GY$500,000 costs award.
)
A letter by Hargesh B Singh published in the Guyana Times describes two parts of the VAMED hospital-sites decision: the reason the Full Court gave for setting aside preservation orders, and what Singh says that change permits. The letter attributes to the court the explanation that the orders were inconsistent with the trial judge’s findings.
Singh characterizes the practical consequence as clearing the way for the Health Ministry to take possession of the affected sites, containers and equipment. He also says the government can safeguard €30 million in performance bonds, about €15 million for each of the two hospital projects. Those possession and bond outcomes are Singh’s account of the decision, not separately stated orders in the court explanation quoted in the letter.
Separately, Singh says the Full Court awarded the state GY$500,000 in legal costs. The available account is Singh’s letter, rather than the underlying ruling.
)
)
)