Leader of the Opposition Hon. Jamale Pringle used the debate on the Limitation (Amendment) Bill 2026 — which sets a six-year deadline for bringing claims before the Industrial Court — to sound the alarm over the court itself, warning the House during the afternoon session of the September 28 sitting that "waiting 12 years... for a judgment, cannot be justice to any of the parties." The United Progressive Party (UPP) leader pressed the government to confront what he called "a critical issue that we must address... the efficiency of the system" — from the processes a matter must clear before it ever reaches the Industrial Court, to the backlog of cases awaiting judgment inside it.
A Six-Year Clock on Industrial Court Claims
The short Bill, moved by Attorney General Steadroy 'Cutie' Benjamin under a suspension of the Standing Orders, amends the Limitation Act 1997 to provide that "no action may be brought, or proceedings commenced, before the court after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action occurred, or the matter giving rise to the proceedings occurred."
AG Benjamin explained that while contract and tort claims are both subject to a six-year limit, matters before the Industrial Court have never carried a time bar even as the courts wrestled for years over whether an individual's unfair dismissal qualifies as a trade dispute under the Industrial Court Act, a question the Court of Appeal confronted in cases such as Universal Caribbean Establishment v James Harrison.
Recalling his early days at the Bar, the Attorney General described a Rastafarian hotel front-desk worker as the "perfect worker" who was dismissed because someone in the establishment "didn't want a Rastafarian to be working at the front desk," and whose case only reached the court nearly 13 years after the event. "That was justice denied," he said. The amendment, he told the House, ends that "open-ended situation": all workplace matters — trade disputes and unfair dismissals alike — can now be brought to the Industrial Court within six years of the event, and not after.
"A Critical Issue That We Must Address... the Efficiency of the System"
Rising to make what he described as "a quick intervention" on the Bill, MP Pringle began: "Now, Mr. Speaker, we understand that a limit must be set. But while we're setting a limit, Mr. Speaker, for these matters to be brought before the court, there's a critical issue that we must address, Mr. AG, and it has to do with the efficiency of the system."
"Because I'm sure you are quite aware that before it gets to the stage of going before the industrial court, there are certain processes that it must follow, and the efficiency of the system, to ensure that these things happen, also needs to be looked at in earnest," he told the Attorney General.
Even claims that reach the court in good time, he warned, run straight into its congestion. "Even with this getting to the courts — the industrial court — within six years... we still have a challenge with the backlog of cases within the industrial court," the Opposition Leader said. "The members on the other side, the AG, must look at ensuring that the industrial court is properly resourced, to give justice."
Twelve Years Waiting on a Judgment
MP Pringle then put a number on the problem. "Even if it gets to the court within six years, waiting 12 years, after it is heard by the industrial court, for a judgment, cannot be justice to any of the parties," he told the House. "So here it is — you are in limbo for 5, 10, 15 years. And I can speak specifically to a situation that is in the industrial court, awaiting judgment, for 12 years now."
The Opposition Leader tied the stalled output to an unresolved dispute involving the court's former president. "Mr. AG, I know there was some sort of issue with the former president... There's a situation with the former president that the AG must resolve," he said. "Because, again, it is said that... the person was dismissed, they are owed money, so they're not writing any judgments. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, there are persons who would have been displaced, waiting for that judgment — not only for compensation, but also for their name to be cleared."








