A temporary order halting the continuation of the Commission of Enquiry into the Urban Development Corporation and the construction sector, as well as the preparation of any report which may be presented to President George Maxwell Richards, took effect yesterday morning, following a ruling by High Court Judge Mira Dean-Armorer.

The ruling, which was handed down in the Port of Spain High Court, came after attorneys representing the commissioners and UDeCOTT reached an amicable agreement, which states: ’There will be no reinstatement or resumption of the enquiry by way of further hearings or the reception of evidence, and/or preparation or publication or dissemination of any report(s), until the date fixed herein for the hearing of the substantive application.’

Following the agreement between attorneys, Justice Dean-Armorer set aside February 8-12 for the trial hearing, and advised attorneys to ensure they were properly prepared by complying with the timeline, saying, ’This is a matter of public importance.’

Earlier in the proceedings, the court heard that top British Queens Counsel Michael Beloff had been retained to represent the commissioners at the court proceedings and will be available in time for next year’s hearing.

The commission is headed by Prof John Uff QC, and includes commission member Desmond Thornhill and Kenneth Sirju.

Much of the morning sessions were spent with attorneys for both parties engaged in heavy discussions outside the courtroom. At around 11.35 a.m., attorneys told the court an agreement had been reached.

Queens Counsel Andrew Goddard led the UDeCOTT defence team, which includes Senior Counsel Frank Solomon and attorney Maharaj, while attorneys Ian Roach, Kerwin Garcia and Michael Beddoe represented the commissioners at yesterday’s hearing.

On September 25, Justice Dean-Armorer granted UDeCOTT leave to file for judicial review in respect of several key decisions of the enquiry.

UDeCOTT further claimed bias on the part of the commissioners against its chairman, Calder Hart. UDeCOTT’s judicial review application seeks to challenge the decision of the commissioners that the enquiry remains valid under the common law as an ad-hoc enquiry (even though it was not gazetted when it began, as is required by the Commissions of Enquiry Act).