Court rules on contract of former CLICO executive

After more than a decade and a half of delays, the High Court today ruled in the suit brought by former CLICO insurance executive Neval Greenidge against the company.

The original application was filed in 2000 against CLICO Holdings Barbados Limited and CLICO International Life Insurance. However, in her decision handed down in the Number 5 Supreme Court, Madame Justice Jacqueline Cornelius ruled that Greenidge’s contract was not with the holding company.  She therefore ruled that the company submit a note for cost.

Cornelius also blamed the attorneys and the disputing parties for the 16 year delay in the case.

The court heard that Greenidge was appointed Vice President of Sales and Marketing in January 1998 and was paid a fixed salary with a productivity bonus. That contract was terminated by letter dated March 13, 1998. However, his dismissal took effect on April 30, 1998.

Greenidge’s private company was offered the same position by letter on March 31, 1998, with effect from April 1 that same year.

The contract provided for termination of employment with one month’s written notice on the part of either party. However, the contract was terminated on
January 8, 1999.

Three days later, on January 11, Greenidge, through his company, was offered the post of Group Marketing Coordinator.

However, the court was told that Greenidge refused to sign the contract and was asked to vacate the premises by letter on January 25.

Greenidge responded to the letter stating that efforts were being made to change the terms and conditions of his employment and he was prepared to enter negotiations, without prejudice.

However, he subsequently turned down another offer for agency manager triggering CLICO to end its contract with his private company.  (EJ)

8 Responses to Court rules on contract of former CLICO executive

  1. Anne Ince
    Anne Ince November 26, 2016 at 4:17 am

    What about Paris ???

  2. Neval Greenidge November 26, 2016 at 6:20 am

    This such a misleading article and an even more misleading headline, and it with question asked prior to this reply about where is Paris it surely gives the impression that I either had money for CLICO or was part of the known illegal activities at CLICO. This reporter who is known for these salicious and misleading articles should by now have matured. The court simply made an order saying that my employment was not with CLICO Holdings one of the companies we were seeking to sue and that cost should be paid. I don’t know what I would have to pay CLICO and if it is that he does not understand the legal proceedings after all these years it is sad as it truly brings the media into continued scrutiny.

  3. Neval Greenidge November 26, 2016 at 6:22 am

    Sorry readers..meant to say this is such a misleading article..and with the question asked…

  4. Tony Webster November 26, 2016 at 6:33 am

    @Anne Ince: Good question, but remember, “Paris is my friend”.

  5. Greengiant November 26, 2016 at 7:17 am

    Vally this brings me to the very famous theory of ” supercesion ” commonly being used to protect workers from being overlooked for promotion. Some deserving, some undeserving.

    This inaccurate piece of reporting shows that even after years in any particular profession some of us still don’t get it right and a younger person similarly qualified with a better clarity of writing can move ahead of you. I have seen this happen on quite a few occasions in journalism.

  6. Alex Alleyne November 26, 2016 at 8:45 am

    16 year delay , Wow, they were hoping that all parties will be dead by the time the case is called.

  7. Haskell Murray November 26, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    How can a case take 16 long years to be completed? Justice delayed is justice denied . Lawyers should not be allowed to constantly delay and delay a case indefinitely.

  8. The Negrocrat November 27, 2016 at 4:14 am

    The legal system stinks. It is better to settle with a wompa or some big rocks.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *