{"id":246281,"date":"2025-08-13T09:05:56","date_gmt":"2025-08-13T13:05:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/?p=246281"},"modified":"2025-08-13T10:03:16","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T14:03:16","slug":"former-transport-board-manager-anderson-carty-wins-his-appeal-at-the-privy-council","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/former-transport-board-manager-anderson-carty-wins-his-appeal-at-the-privy-council\/","title":{"rendered":"Privy Council Reinstates Damages for Former Transport Board Manager"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT\u2019S APP GROUP<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Privy Council Reinstates Damages for Former Transport Board Manager<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has ruled in favour of former Antigua and Barbuda<\/a> Transport Board operations manager Anderson Carty<\/a>, overturning a Court of Appeal decision and reinstating an award of exemplary damages and costs made by the Industrial Court.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT\u2019S APP GROUP<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr Carty, who joined the Transport Board in 2006, was serving as operations manager under a three-year contract when he was dismissed in October 2014 while on approved vacation leave. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Industrial Court found that his termination \u2014 announced in the media before he was officially notified \u2014 was not a genuine redundancy, and described the circumstances as \u201charsh and oppressive\u201d.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The court cited a lack of consultation, denial of access to personal belongings, and the deduction of an outstanding loan balance from his final payment without agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT\u2019S APP GROUP<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In 2020, the Industrial Court awarded him compensation under several heads, including $25,000 in exemplary damages and $2,500 in costs.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Transport Board did not contest the finding of unfair dismissal on appeal but successfully argued before the Court of Appeal <\/a>that the conduct did not meet the threshold for exemplary damages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appellate court also removed the costs order, ruling there were no exceptional reasons to depart from the general rule against costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT\u2019S APP GROUP<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its 13 August 2025 judgment, the Privy Council rejected the Court of Appeal\u2019s reasoning, finding that the Industrial Court Act expressly empowers the Industrial Court to award exemplary damages where a dismissal is harsh and oppressive or contrary to good industrial relations practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It ruled there was no need to impose additional requirements, such as proving the conduct was \u201coppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional\u201d, as the Court of Appeal had done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board also concluded that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Industrial Court\u2019s findings on exemplary damages and costs, given statutory provisions limiting appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It said those findings were final and could not be challenged unless specific grounds under the Act were met \u2014 which they were not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, the Privy Council advised that the appeal be allowed and the Industrial Court\u2019s awards of $25,000 in exemplary damages and $2,500 in costs be reinstated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n