Full Court clears way for state to take possession of VAMED hospital sites
The Full Court has set aside five preservation orders made against the State in the legal dispute involving Austrian engineering company VAMED Engineering GmbH, clearing the way for the Health Ministry to take possession of the affected hospital sites, containers, and equipment.
According to a press release issued Thursday by the AG (AG)’s Chambers, the Full Court on September 22, 2026, allowed the AG’s appeal against the preservation orders made by Justice Renita Singh on August 6, 2026.
The dispute concerns the Ministry of Health’s termination of construction contracts for the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital (GPMH) and the New Amsterdam Hospital Campus (NAHC).
The appeal was heard by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh and Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul, who issued orders directing the Ministry of Health to preserve the two hospital sites, along with 52 containers and equipment located at the GPMH site.
The Ministry was also ordered not to open or otherwise interfere with the containers or equipment. One of the orders has also restricted access to the GPMH site, allowing VAMED Engineering’s security personnel to enter only for the purpose of securing the containers and equipment.
The Health Ministry was further ordered to preserve contractors’ documents, property designs, plans, and intellectual property. In its decision, the Full Court found that the preservation orders could not stand, stating that they were inconsistent with Justice Renita Singh’s findings and that their legal foundation had not been adequately established.
The Full Court held, “…the preservation orders cannot stand. They are inconsistent with the learned trial Judge’s findings. Their legal foundation was inadequately established, and their substantive effect was not properly considered.”
The Full Court ruled that Section 16 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act prohibits injunctions against the State in proceedings of this nature. It found that the statutory prohibition could not be circumvented by describing orders regulating the State’s conduct as preservation orders or by relying on the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Judges also found that the preservation orders lacked the necessary statutory basis under the Arbitration Act 2024. They noted that the orders conflicted with the trial Judge’s findings that there was no urgency and that damages would have been an adequate remedy.
However, the Full Court’s decision did not disturb the High Court’s refusal of VAMED’s applications for conservatory and restraining orders. The High Court’s order referring the underlying contractual dispute to arbitration also remains in place. The Full Court awarded the AG $500,000 in costs.
The AG’s Chambers said the ruling means the Ministry of Health is now cleared to take possession of the sites, containers, equipment, and associated construction materials and to proceed with the projects as it sees fit.
The State was represented by AG Anil Nandlall SC, together with Deputy Solicitor General Shoshana Lall, and attorneys Prithima Kissoon and Joshua Cullen of the AG’s Chambers. VAMED Engineering was represented by attorney Nigel Hughes.
The Government terminated both hospital contracts with the Austrian company on July 23, 2026, citing breaches of the agreements and significant delays in the completion of the projects.
The Government had made repeated efforts to engage the contractor and have the works completed while also seeking to resolve the outstanding disputes amicably. However, those efforts did not result in the contractor fulfilling its contractual obligations.
By the time the contracts were terminated, the works on both projects had fallen significantly behind the schedules stipulated under the agreements. Following the termination, the Government took steps to secure both hospital sites and the materials located there, in keeping with provisions contained in the contracts.
The Government also moved to call in the performance bonds associated with the two contracts.
Each contract was backed by a €15 million performance bond, placing the combined value of the two bonds at €30 million. The bonds were issued by the Bank of Austria.
The two projects represent major investments in Guyana’s healthcare infrastructure. The US$161 million New Amsterdam Hospital Campus in Region Six is being developed as a 230-bed, Level Five healthcare facility, with advanced diagnostic services, specialised care, and five operating theatres.
The €149 million Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital at Ogle is designed as a 256-bed specialised facility focused on maternal and child healthcare. The project includes surgical facilities, an intensive care unit, imaging services, and oncology services.
The contractual dispute is to be resolved through arbitration, with the Paris, France-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) set to conduct the arbitration hearings in Guyana.
The dispute concerns the Ministry of Health’s termination of construction contracts for the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital (GPMH) and the New Amsterdam Hospital Campus (NAHC).
The appeal was heard by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh and Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul, who issued orders directing the Ministry of Health to preserve the two hospital sites, along with 52 containers and equipment located at the GPMH site.
The Ministry was also ordered not to open or otherwise interfere with the containers or equipment. One of the orders has also restricted access to the GPMH site, allowing VAMED Engineering’s security personnel to enter only for the purpose of securing the containers and equipment.
The Health Ministry was further ordered to preserve contractors’ documents, property designs, plans, and intellectual property. In its decision, the Full Court found that the preservation orders could not stand, stating that they were inconsistent with Justice Renita Singh’s findings and that their legal foundation had not been adequately established.
The Full Court held, “…the preservation orders cannot stand. They are inconsistent with the learned trial Judge’s findings. Their legal foundation was inadequately established, and their substantive effect was not properly considered.”
The Full Court ruled that Section 16 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act prohibits injunctions against the State in proceedings of this nature. It found that the statutory prohibition could not be circumvented by describing orders regulating the State’s conduct as preservation orders or by relying on the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Judges also found that the preservation orders lacked the necessary statutory basis under the Arbitration Act 2024. They noted that the orders conflicted with the trial Judge’s findings that there was no urgency and that damages would have been an adequate remedy.
However, the Full Court’s decision did not disturb the High Court’s refusal of VAMED’s applications for conservatory and restraining orders. The High Court’s order referring the underlying contractual dispute to arbitration also remains in place. The Full Court awarded the AG $500,000 in costs.
The AG’s Chambers said the ruling means the Ministry of Health is now cleared to take possession of the sites, containers, equipment, and associated construction materials and to proceed with the projects as it sees fit.
The State was represented by AG Anil Nandlall SC, together with Deputy Solicitor General Shoshana Lall, and attorneys Prithima Kissoon and Joshua Cullen of the AG’s Chambers. VAMED Engineering was represented by attorney Nigel Hughes.
The Government terminated both hospital contracts with the Austrian company on July 23, 2026, citing breaches of the agreements and significant delays in the completion of the projects.
The Government had made repeated efforts to engage the contractor and have the works completed while also seeking to resolve the outstanding disputes amicably. However, those efforts did not result in the contractor fulfilling its contractual obligations.
By the time the contracts were terminated, the works on both projects had fallen significantly behind the schedules stipulated under the agreements. Following the termination, the Government took steps to secure both hospital sites and the materials located there, in keeping with provisions contained in the contracts.
The Government also moved to call in the performance bonds associated with the two contracts.
Each contract was backed by a €15 million performance bond, placing the combined value of the two bonds at €30 million. The bonds were issued by the Bank of Austria.
The two projects represent major investments in Guyana’s healthcare infrastructure. The US$161 million New Amsterdam Hospital Campus in Region Six is being developed as a 230-bed, Level Five healthcare facility, with advanced diagnostic services, specialised care, and five operating theatres.
The €149 million Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital at Ogle is designed as a 256-bed specialised facility focused on maternal and child healthcare. The project includes surgical facilities, an intensive care unit, imaging services, and oncology services.
The contractual dispute is to be resolved through arbitration, with the Paris, France-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) set to conduct the arbitration hearings in Guyana.
Discover more from Guyana Times
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Source: Guyana Times
Contents
The Full Court has set aside five preservation orders made against the State in the legal dispute involving Austrian engineering company VAMED Engineering GmbH, clearing the way for the Health Ministry to take possession of the affected hospital sites, containers, and equipment.According to a press release issued Thursday by the AG (AG)’s Chambers, the Full Court on September 22, 2026, allowed the AG’s appeal against the preservation orders made by Justice Renita Singh on August 6, 2026.
The dispute concerns the Ministry of Health’s termination of construction contracts for the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital (GPMH) and the New Amsterdam Hospital Campus (NAHC).
The appeal was heard by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh and Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul, who issued orders directing the Ministry of Health to preserve the two hospital sites, along with 52 containers and equipment located at the GPMH site.
The Ministry was also ordered not to open or otherwise interfere with the containers or equipment. One of the orders has also restricted access to the GPMH site, allowing VAMED Engineering’s security personnel to enter only for the purpose of securing the containers and equipment.
The Health Ministry was further ordered to preserve contractors’ documents, property designs, plans, and intellectual property. In its decision, the Full Court found that the preservation orders could not stand, stating that they were inconsistent with Justice Renita Singh’s findings and that their legal foundation had not been adequately established.
The Full Court held, “…the preservation orders cannot stand. They are inconsistent with the learned trial Judge’s findings. Their legal foundation was inadequately established, and their substantive effect was not properly considered.”
The Full Court ruled that Section 16 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act prohibits injunctions against the State in proceedings of this nature. It found that the statutory prohibition could not be circumvented by describing orders regulating the State’s conduct as preservation orders or by relying on the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Judges also found that the preservation orders lacked the necessary statutory basis under the Arbitration Act 2024. They noted that the orders conflicted with the trial Judge’s findings that there was no urgency and that damages would have been an adequate remedy.
However, the Full Court’s decision did not disturb the High Court’s refusal of VAMED’s applications for conservatory and restraining orders. The High Court’s order referring the underlying contractual dispute to arbitration also remains in place. The Full Court awarded the AG $500,000 in costs.
The AG’s Chambers said the ruling means the Ministry of Health is now cleared to take possession of the sites, containers, equipment, and associated construction materials and to proceed with the projects as it sees fit.
The State was represented by AG Anil Nandlall SC, together with Deputy Solicitor General Shoshana Lall, and attorneys Prithima Kissoon and Joshua Cullen of the AG’s Chambers. VAMED Engineering was represented by attorney Nigel Hughes.
The Government terminated both hospital contracts with the Austrian company on July 23, 2026, citing breaches of the agreements and significant delays in the completion of the projects.
The Government had made repeated efforts to engage the contractor and have the works completed while also seeking to resolve the outstanding disputes amicably. However, those efforts did not result in the contractor fulfilling its contractual obligations.
By the time the contracts were terminated, the works on both projects had fallen significantly behind the schedules stipulated under the agreements. Following the termination, the Government took steps to secure both hospital sites and the materials located there, in keeping with provisions contained in the contracts.
The Government also moved to call in the performance bonds associated with the two contracts.
Each contract was backed by a €15 million performance bond, placing the combined value of the two bonds at €30 million. The bonds were issued by the Bank of Austria.
The two projects represent major investments in Guyana’s healthcare infrastructure. The US$161 million New Amsterdam Hospital Campus in Region Six is being developed as a 230-bed, Level Five healthcare facility, with advanced diagnostic services, specialised care, and five operating theatres.
The €149 million Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital at Ogle is designed as a 256-bed specialised facility focused on maternal and child healthcare. The project includes surgical facilities, an intensive care unit, imaging services, and oncology services.
The contractual dispute is to be resolved through arbitration, with the Paris, France-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) set to conduct the arbitration hearings in Guyana.Discover more from Guyana Times
