(Kaieteur News) – Lawyers representing the Vienna-based healthcare infrastructure company VAMED Engineering GmbH have filed for leave to move to the Court of Appeal in the matter where the full court lifted the orders secured by VAMED Engineering against government over the control of construction sites for two modern hospitals.
Last week, the full court lifted preservation orders against the State in a dispute involving Vienna-based VAMED Engineering GmbH over the construction of the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital (GPMH) and the New Amsterdam Hospital Campus (NAHC).
According to court documents seen by this newspaper, the law firm of Hughes, Fields and Stoby has filed for leave to appeal the order of the full court which lifted the preservation orders made by Justice Renita Singh on August 6, 2026.
The Guyana Paediatric and Maternal Hospital
The law firm also requested that a stay of execution of the full court’s order dated September 22, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
In the document, the appellants are contending that the full court erred in law in allowing the appeal against the preservation orders (Orders 4-8) made by the Justice Renita Singh, which were made pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction and powers to preserve property and Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 2024.
They contended that inter alia the full court erred in holding (orally) that the trial judge, having refused conservatory orders, could not then make preservation orders directing the State to take certain acts of preservation and restraining it from doing certain acts.
“Those preservation orders were distinct in nature and purpose from the conservatory orders that were refused; they were protective measures to preserve property pending arbitration, not injunctions against the State.
The ruling clears the way for the Ministry of Health to take possession of the project sites, containers, and equipment and construction materials and proceed with the projects,” the document outlined.
Last Tuesday, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, noted that the full court, Chief Justice Navindra Singh and Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul set aside five orders made by Justice Renita Singh on August 6, 2026. Justice Singh had ordered the Ministry of Health to preserve the GPMH and NAHC sites, as well as 52 containers and equipment at the GPMH site, and prohibited the ministry from opening or interfering with them.
VAMED was similarly ordered to preserve the containers and equipment, while its security personnel were permitted access to the GPMH site solely to secure the items. The ministry was also ordered to preserve contractors’ documents, property, designs, plans and intellectual property. In its decision, the full court said the appeal concerned the validity of the five preservation orders made after the trial judge had refused VAMED’s applications for conservatory and restraining orders against the Ministry of Health.
In its findings, the full court had questioned whether, having refused the substantive interim relief sought by VAMED on both jurisdictional and discretionary grounds, the trial judge could nevertheless make substantially similar orders by characterising them as measures to preserve property.
“For the reasons which follow, we find that 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 stated.
The court held that Section 16 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act prohibits injunctions against the State in proceedings of this nature.
That prohibition, it said, could not be circumvented by describing orders regulating the State’s conduct as preservation orders or by relying on the civil procedure rules.
The full court also found that the orders lacked the necessary statutory foundation under the Arbitration Act 2024 and conflicted with the trial judge’s findings that there was no urgency and that damages would constitute an adequate remedy.
The high court’s refusal of VAMED’s applications for conservatory and restraining orders remained in place, as does its decision to refer the underlying contractual dispute to arbitration.
The full court also awarded the attorney general GY$500,000 in costs.
Source: Kaieteur News
