The former acting CEO of the Inter-Island Transport Company of the Port Authority will receive compensation arising out of his dismissal in 2018 over issues relating to the procurement of the MV Cabo Star.

On Wednesday, Justice Ricky Rahim ordered the Port Authority to compensate Leon Grant for breach of contract in the sum of $434,625, together with interest of 3.5 per cent per annum, from May 24, 2018-October 18, and his legal costs.

Grant’s substantive post at the time of his dismissal was executive manager, Scarborough and Government Shipping Services. He was also chairman of the authority’s tenders evaluation committee.

The Port Authority claimed it had lost trust and confidence in his ability to discharge his duties because of his alleged failure to disclose e-mails he received from representatives of Baja Ferries on the procurement of the MV Cabo Star.

The e-mails allegedly included the Cabo Star’s particulars and certificates and a request to meet on an offer to charter the vessel.

In his ruling, Rahim said Grant’s dismissal was “without sufficient cause.” He said while it was clear Grant failed to forward e-mails from the Cabo Star’s owners to the port’s secretary, those e-mails did not set out pricing details.

It was Rahim’s findings on the evidence that Grant received the first e-mail from Bridgemans Services Group – the vessel’s broker – on the Cabo Star offer for passenger services, which he sent forward to the port’s secretary, but not follow-up e-mails from Baja Ferries.

“So that it was not the case that the claimant had failed to disclose proposed terms of the charter party.”

Rahim also said, “ It must also be noted that he had, in fact, forwarded the main e-mail that informed the PATT that the owners were interested in dealing directly with PATT.

“This was the pivotal e-mail. The substance of the e-mails must be considered as the allegation of loss of trust and confidence cannot exist in isolation but must carry with it some real consequence of the action of the claimant that would have led to such a loss of trust and confidence.”

Rahim said the authority operated on the basis that dealing directly with the vessel’s owner would have put it at a comparative advantage, as opposed to a broker. However, Rahim said this was “pure speculation” in the absence of proof.

“It may be equally reasonable that an owner may offer the same terms as the broker, thereby profiting from the fee (if any, as there is also no such evidence) that would ordinarily be paid to the broker.

“Certainly, no evidence in that regard has been led before this court to justify the application of such a commercial principle and the burden to do so fell on the defendant.

“The defendant has, therefore, failed to discharge that burden. So that the reason for the alleged loss and confidence appeared to be of no foundation whatsoever and the court so finds.”

Rahim also said from the evidence, it appeared that Grant “made a genuine error” by not detecting the follow-up e-mails, and there was no motive on his pa