The defendant filed summons raising a preliminary point. He did not cite the particular provisions nor did he specify them during submission. In response, learned counsel Corrin for the plaintiff said that she would concede that if the plaintiff were to sue his employer, the suit would be statute barred. She, however, contended that this suit, brought by originating summons, was not against the employer of the plaintiff for unpaid sums being renumeration for employment of the plaintiff. She named the employer as Sollumber Limited, though the plaintiff's affidavit suggests someone else, Rantex Limited.
Different provisions regarding computation of time lapse apply to different causes of action.
That was conceded. As I understood her, counsel for plaintiff urged the court to hold that the plaintiff's case is based on acknowledgments by the defendant and that the acknowledgments alone, not the alleged employment, founded the liability of the defendant to pay. She intimated to the possibility of a deed in favour of the plaintiff. She might have meant a deed of assignment, but she did not pursue that. Submission of counsel Corrin, extended would be that if the liability of the defendant is identified as arising from acknowledgments then the claims have been brought within time for bringing suit of this nature, the acknowledgments having been made on or about 18.4.1990 when Certificate of Approval was granted, and on 21.11.1994, when the defendant wrote to the plaintiff accepting to pay if original letter of employment was provided.