I think the point is that if Jack doesn't comply, he will be added as a defendant. The judge stated case law why that should not happen because of the defendents application, but then also stated how it can happen at the courts discretion. He also indicated that TTFF should have done this 5 years ago and intimated that he believed it hadn't been done because of a conflict of interest regarding the lawyers.
He also noted the timescale and the statute of limitations.
He has effectively ensured that should it be required, he could add Warner as a defendent and not allow Lalla and friends to defend all 3 parties.
I believe he's giving them enough rope to hang themselves without leaving any loopholes. Once he acts, I believe it will be swiftly and without remorse.
Listen fella, the judge playing smart with foolishness. Everything you said there might well come to pass... who knows. The fact of the matter is that the TTFF can't force Jack to produce nothing... just as Brownsugar say, Jack could easily tell dem "go aks yuh mudda." In which case they'll return to court and relay that to the learned judge... and only then at his discretion he'll add him? I'm curious to know what his rationale for NOT adding him was because if he can indeed add him at his discretion then none of the precedents yuh claim he cited (for not adding him) is controlling.
The position you claim he took is inherently contradictory... either the precedents prevent him from adding Jack as a defendant ('a', not 'e'), or it is within his discretion to add him. Anything else just adds another unnecessary layer of delay. How long has this case been before Rampersad? How long did it take him to decide he needed a proper accounting in the first place? And how long he asking for it? Bottom line is that Jack don't even need to be added as a defendant. If a party has information critical to the court, then the court can subpoena him (or the documents) as necessary, without that person becoming a party to the matter. If I see you shoot somebody you think I need to be charged as an accessory in order for them to get me in court to testify as to what I saw? Of course not, they'll just serve my ass with a subpoena and I have to appear under penalty of law. And you appear and say "I was looking the other way and saw nothing"
This is what should have been done with Jack a year ago... come and tell us what you know (and bring yuh accounts with yuh) or face a contempt charge. Easy breezy. But nah... every couple months he have allyuh running up in court like is company he like.
Well fella (this is nice to be friendly) I guess you're right. After all, if the judge tells Jack "yuh gotta talk" he'll just talk, right? Bakes, you really have to stop confusing the issue for the forumites. Say your piece by all means, but don't confuse facts.
The judges ruling said that because the claimants had requested Warner to be added as a defendant to provide an account and disclosure of documents, there is no need to add him as a defendant, as Warner swore in an affidavit that he was prepared to provide TTFF with the information.
So all TTFF have to do is ask. But they haven't provided proof that they have asked. So now they have been ordered to do so.
Warners lawyers stated that a party should not be added to a case purely for the purpose of discovery. The judge agreed with this. However, he also stated that "clearly this court may add a new party" and he gave the precedents.
The judges position is that Warners only bearing on the case in front of him
at this time is one of discovery. Once Warner provides the correct accounts, the Judge can determine how much to award the players. It is not his concern that Warner has witheld funds from TTFF. That is their concern. Once the Judge can make his order for payment to TTFF, his job is done, unless TTFF do not comply. At that point he may take further action. However, should Warners evidence point to witholding of evidence, or collusion, then he may be added.
Presumably the tactic is for Jack to say I had the money, but it was all spent on football development, the Judge to make an award against TTFF as they shouldn't have spent the players money, TTFF to declare bankruptcy and reform as FFTT and it all goes away.
The problem they all have, as far as I can see, is that if Warner declares the correct accounts, he also has to provide documentary evidence. If the judge is not satisfied, he could, as Bakes suggested, haul him into court to be questioned or added as a third defendant. Same if Warners accounts aren't satisfactory in the judges opinion.
Whatever the outcome, it appears that they will finally achieve one of two aims...either find out where the money went or see Jack Warner in court.
I'm not a legal guy like you Bakes, but if the judge just added Warner to save time, I'm sure Warners legal team would challenge and cite case law leaving the option of a ruling to be overturned on appeal. But if he follows a prescribed process that leaves no option but to add Warner to allow justice to be done, that appeal will be much harder to overturn, not so?
The fact of the matter is that the TTFF can't force Jack to produce nothing This statement is totally incorrect from a legal standpoint and the judge actually refers to this and it is at this point the judge refers to collusion and conflict of interest. TTFF could have sued Warner 5 years ago to produce full audited accounts and return of their funds. They just didn't do it (for obvious reasons)
