In a landmark split decision that reshapes landlord-tenant liability rules across Trinidad, the Court of Appeal has handed down a pivotal ruling that reverses a prior High Court judgment, opening the door for two affected commercial tenants to secure millions in compensation for property damage caused by an unforeseen plumbing failure.
The legal dispute traces back to a 2018 flooding event at Marabella’s Allum’s Shopping Centre. A PVC angle valve connected to an upper-level unit’s kitchen sink, leased by local firm O.T.I. Trinidad Ltd, unexpectedly failed. The resulting leak seeped downward into five ground-floor commercial suites, two of which are operated by Western Industrial Solutions Ltd and entrepreneur Debera Rampersad, who runs the retail outlet Debera Fashion Step Up and Save. The damaged inventory and forced business interruptions pushed the two affected tenants to claim more than TT$3 million in total losses.
When the case first went to trial, High Court Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams dismissed the claims against the property owner, J.T. Allum and Company Ltd. The trial judge ruled that commercial landlords cannot be held responsible for sudden plumbing failures that occur within spaces exclusively controlled and occupied by their tenants, clearing the company of any legal obligation to compensate the businesses for their losses.
But the appellate court, a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh alongside Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and James Aboud, rejected this lower-court interpretation of property law. In a 2-1 majority decision delivered Wednesday, the panel found that even though the landlord was not found to be negligent in causing the pipe failure, it still bears legal responsibility for the resulting damage under the law of private nuisance.
Writing the lead judgment for the majority, Justice Bereaux — whose reasoning was backed by Chief Justice Boodoosingh — explained that the critical factor establishing liability is the landlord’s reserved right under all commercial leases for the property to enter tenant-occupied spaces to conduct inspections and complete necessary repairs. This retained right, the justice argued, is sufficient to uphold a nuisance claim against the property owner. He further noted that the landlord had previously argued in separate legal proceedings against the upper-floor tenant that the site’s plumbing was already in a state of disrepair, meaning the company cannot now claim the hidden defect was unidentifiable through reasonable inspection.
Justice Bereaux also clarified a longstanding point of nuisance law: when a landlord explicitly retains the right to conduct repairs on a property, they can be held liable for damage caused to third parties even if they had no direct, actual knowledge of the hazardous defect before the incident occurred.
Justice Aboud issued a dissent, arguing the appeal should have been thrown out. He characterized the pipe failure as an isolated, entirely unforeseeable event: the 10-year-old pipe joint had failed suddenly with no warning signs, and this does not meet the legal standard for a private nuisance. He also cautioned that the majority’s legal reasoning could impose an unfair and unreasonable burden on commercial landlords across the country, forcing them to conduct exhaustive searches for hidden defects in spaces fully occupied and controlled by their tenants.
On the separate claim of negligence brought by the tenants, the appellate court was unanimous. The full panel agreed to dismiss the negligence claim, as no evidence presented during the trial linked the landlord’s actions or inactions to the pipe failure itself. The court also upheld the trial judge’s ruling to exclude proposed testimony from former landlord employee Vedesh Gopaul, finding his statements about the original plumbing installation were not relevant to the core legal questions in the case.
The matter will now return to the High Court, where a Master will assess and determine the final amount of damages to be awarded to the two successful appellants. The appellate court also left in place an earlier unrelated order requiring Rampersad to settle all outstanding back rent owed to the property owner, which has no connection to the 2018 flooding incident. Attorneys Chanka Persadsingh and Anand Rampersad represented the two affected tenants, while Shankar Bidaisee, instructed by Rachael Jaggernauth, appeared on behalf of the landlord.