The Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) is pleased to announce the landmark ruling from the Privy Council judgment delivered in its favour, today, Thursday 22nd January, 2026, against Uniform Building Contractors Limited (U.B.C.).
This is the successful conclusion to a 13-year marathon journey for justice, in the multi-million-dollar claim brought by a contractor against WASA, with significant financial risk exposure.
This judgment is historic because it has clarified and settled important legal principles regarding the
rights of public authorities in construction contracts, with serious ramifications for how business is done in the public sector.
The case arose out of a contract dated 23rd May, 2007, for the design of 28.43 km of pipeline from Rio Claro to Mayaro. The contract was based on FIDIC conditions of contract for plant and design-build for building, design, and engineering works that should have been executed by the contractor. On the 27th May 2013, UBC brought a claim for damages for breach of contract in the amount of $13,915,215.46, together with interest and legal costs. Had WASA lost, its liability would have been in excess of $22M.
UBC contended that former WASA Engineer, Barry Paul had orally approved variations to the scope of works, which entitled it to this exorbitant extra sum. It claimed the extra work included cutting of the asphalt roadway for the laying of pipes, removal of extra excavated material beyond what was originally envisaged, the importation of backfill material, and the carrying out of nighttime work. The contractor claimed that the original design had only catered for the pipelines being laid on the verge alongside the roadway, but this was not possible, and they were forced to run the pipelines in the roadway itself.
WASA contended that the contract had already catered for the extra work and hence refused to make any additional payments. The High Court had ruled in WASA’s favour however, the Court of Appeal allowed UBC’s appeal and reversed that judgment ordering WASA to pay the sum of $13,915,215.46 with interest at a higher commercial rate plus legal costs.
WASA was dissatisfied and appealed to the Privy Council. In a unanimous judgment delivered by Sir Peter Coulson on behalf of the Board Comprising (Lords Hamblen, Leggart, Richards, Coulson and Lady Rose), it was held that under the terms of the FIDIC contract for this civil engineering project, the contractor was responsible for both the design and construction of the works for a fixed price. It was a lump sum contract in which the contractor is presumed to have catered for such contingencies and foreseeable risks in its bid. The court noted that such contracts were particularly important in the case of public authorities spending public funds: “It is designed to provide as much financial certainty as possible for both sides. That is of particular importance where, as here, the contracting authority is a publicly funded body.”
In such a case, if the contractor underestimated the scope of works, it did so at its own peril. It warned contractors against underestimating the works in the hope that they can supplement the bid by subsequent variations to the scope of works observing that “an underestimate of the work required to meet the contractual requirements of a lump sum contract cannot be a variation”.
Importantly, the court held that the oral approvals granted by WASA’s Engineer for the additional
work could not displace the clear terms of the contract, which contained a detailed and comprehensive Bill of Quantities, which was a genuine pre-estimate by the contractor of the costs of the proposed works.
The Board rejected UBC’s submissions that it had commenced the work before the contract was finalized and hence did not have sufficient time to carry out proper site investigations before the start of the works. The court stated” That argument must fail at every level” because WASA had given UBC sufficient time to inspect the site prior to the commencement of the works and hence, “There was therefore no question of UBC having limited time to assess, or being taken by surprise by, the conditions on site.”
The Court held that the contractor was not entitled to “re-write” the contract in a way that would make WASA liable for the design and execution of the works because that was the sole responsibility of the contractor and concluded that WASA had no design liability at all. It stated “There is no legal basis for UBC’s attempt at such a comprehensive re-allocation of risk and reward as between the parties.”
The claim for the extra costs because the work had to be done at night was also rejected: “If the night
work was carried out as a consequence of items of work which, on the Board’s analysis, UBC were always obliged to undertake pursuant to the contract, then the night work could not itself be a variation.”
Commenting on the victory, acting CEO Mr. Dain Maharaj said “The Board and Management of WASA
is extremely happy that the Authority has emerged victorious in this important legal battle. The decision to pursue this appeal is justified and WASA is vindicated. The judgment will provide important guidance for all public authorities and is a landmark ruling that will usher in a new era of corporate governance based on principles of transparency, accountability, and proper contract administration.”
WASA wishes to thank its legal team led by former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan SC, leading Mr. Ganesh Saroop and Kate Temple-Mabe of Freedom Law Chambers.