The Sovereign Press

Errata

The Sovereign Press does not revise a released version in place. Corrections and additions are issued as new versions under the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH convention, and the version — together with the date to which the law is stated, where the work states one — identifies the text a reader holds.

Corrections notified to the Press are recorded on this page against the version in which they were found and the version in which they were resolved. A title showing no corrections is not silence: it is the Press’s statement, as at the date this page was last reviewed, that none has been recorded against it.

Caribbean Construction Law: A Regional and Comparative Treatise

Page What it said What it should say Version found Version resolved
various — 11 occurrences internal FCG programme references in the text, e.g. “(35-55% across CARICOM, per the doctrinal statement at FCG-GY-CIP-031-2026)” and “the parallel court-grade evidentiary framework (FCG-GY-CIP-045-2026)” the internal reference removed; substantive content retained, so the figure above now reads “(35-55% across CARICOM)”. Seven distinct references in eleven occurrences, on leaves 48, 80, 87 (twice), 112, 117, 118 (twice), 128 (twice) and 167 of the print interior. These are FCG's own internal document numbers: they name material a reader cannot obtain and should not have appeared in the text of the book. Corrected at the generator source, not in the delivered file. v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶12-022 — the court’s first contested merits decision — — the court’s first merits decision against a Member State — v1.3.0 v1.4.0
III-A.4 through the final appellate judgment of 27 May 2025 through the final appellate judgment of 27 May 2015 v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶42-008 The model has equally survived constitutional attack at apex level elsewhere: The model has equally been upheld at apex level elsewhere: v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶43-011 upholding the employer’s post-termination draw-down of US$139 million in advance-payment and performance securities. upholding the employer’s demands on the standby letters of credit that secured the contract. v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶21-017 in the region’s second Privy Council FIDIC decision. in a further Privy Council FIDIC decision. v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶21-017 the contractor’s additional claim failed because the contract’s valuation machinery — Clause 53 read with Clause 70 — required the employer’s own approval as a step separate from the Engineer’s certification, and the re-assessment had been performed by employer personnel rather than the appointed Engineer. the contractor’s additional claim failed because Clause 53.4 left its valuation to the Employer’s own decision, which the Employer, a company, could take only through its board; a re-assessment by its employees that the board had neither authorised nor approved did not bind it, and Clause 70 added nothing because Part II made no provision under it. v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶14-008 may arise expressly or by implication from the variation clause itself arises expressly from the valuation rule the variation machinery engages — reasonable cost with reasonable profit where no rate applies (clause 12.3) — v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶13-049 are cited in the English Technology and Construction Court and in the standard practitioner texts as authority of general application. are treated in the practitioner commentary as authority of general application on the FIDIC conditions. v1.3.0 v1.4.0
IX-S3 the constitutional procurement entrenchment Guyana wrote and BK International enforced the procurement law Guyana wrote and the Caribbean Court of Justice opened to judicial review in BK International v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶16-006 The Privy Council held that clause 2.4 of the FIDIC Red Book (1999) requires the employer to take positive steps to demonstrate The Privy Council upheld the arbitrator’s finding that clause 2.4 of the FIDIC Red Book (1999) required the employer to take positive steps to demonstrate v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶18-023 — a holding the regional courts have since applied, and which dovetails with the conclusive interim status of certificates confirmed in Junior Sammy. — subject to the employer’s common-law right to abate for defective work, which the Board preserved; the holding sits with Junior Sammy’s insistence that a challenge to a certified sum be pleaded and particularised. v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶17-026 the Privy Council confirmed that a challenge to an interim payment certificate requires proof of fraud or over-certification, rejecting an unparticularised challenge as a fishing expedition. The decision establishes for the region that the interim certificate carries a conclusive interim status absent fraud, so that the Privy Council held that an employer resisting payment must plead and particularise a breach that reduced the value of the work, that a bare belief in over-certification did not found an allegation of fraud, and that the accompanying disclosure application was a fishing expedition. The decision establishes for the region that a certified sum is payable when it falls due, so that v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶21-002 on the conclusive interim status of payment certificates under clause 14 on the payability of certified sums under clause 14 v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶21-020 Part III established the conclusive interim status of the certificate Part III established that the certified sum is payable when due v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶26-018 confirmed the conclusive interim status of the Red Book payment certificate held certified sums payable when due under the Red Book and required any challenge to them to be pleaded and particularised v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶22-006 confirms the assessor’s obligation to consider extension entitlement objectively even where the application is defective holds that a contract administrator’s failure to operate the extension-of-time machinery does not of itself bar the employer from deducting liquidated damages where the contract’s express conditions for deduction are met v1.3.0 v1.4.0
III-E.1 the law implies that they cannot sue one another for that insured risk the contract is ordinarily construed so that they cannot sue one another for that insured risk v1.3.0 v1.4.0
¶17-023 the case is cited as Fluor v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Ltd the case is cited as Fluor Ltd v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co Ltd, the name the judgment itself carries v1.3.0 v1.4.0
Table of Legislation and Instruments, CREEBC entry (folio xix) 2018 CARICOM Regional Energy Efficiency Building Code (CREEBC) (Caribbean Organisation of Standards and Quality with the International Code Council and ASHRAE, 2018), developed by the CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality… 2018 CARICOM Regional Energy Efficiency Building Code (CREEBC) (adapting the International Code Council’s International Energy Conservation Code 2018 and ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016), developed by the CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality… The parenthesis named CROSQ incorrectly as the “Caribbean Organisation of Standards and Quality” and credited the International Code Council and ASHRAE as co-developers; CREEBC adapts their standards. The entry’s own following clause already named the body correctly. v1.4.0 v1.4.1
Leaf 5 (imprint page) — the version statement and the recommended-citation note Edition 1, version 1.3.0… and, in the recommended-citation note on the same leaf, “Where the edition matters to the citation, give the version and the law-stated date: (1st edn, v1.3.0, law stated as at 24 April 2026)” Edition 1, version 1.4.2… and “(1st edn, v1.4.2, law stated as at 24 April 2026)”. The First Edition was issued on 1 October 2026 as v1.4.0 and was followed by v1.4.1; both interiors print “version 1.3.0” on leaf 5 and instruct citation at v1.3.0. The imprint leaf is generated from a single canonical record, and the step that regenerates it was not run when the version advanced, so the printed statement stayed at the preceding version while the version of record moved twice. This error is confined to leaf 5; it does not affect the law-stated date, the pagination, the paragraph numbering or the text of either interior. Copies of v1.4.0 and v1.4.1 print version 1.3.0 on leaf 5 in error. Every such copy was issued directly by the Press to a named licensee, and the Press records which version each received. Cite the version given in the Press’s notice to you: (1st edn, v1.4.0, law stated as at 24 April 2026) or (1st edn, v1.4.1, law stated as at 24 April 2026). If you hold such a copy and have no notice, write to publisher@thesovereignpressgy.com. The Reader’s Sample carries its true version in its PDF document properties. v1.4.0 v1.4.2
Table of Cases, Caribbean Court of Justice (folio ix in v1.4.0 and v1.4.1; folio x in v1.4.2) the seventeen Caribbean Court of Justice entries appear under a single heading, “Caribbean Court of Justice — Appellate Jurisdiction” the entries appear under two headings, “Caribbean Court of Justice — Original Jurisdiction” and “Caribbean Court of Justice — Appellate Jurisdiction”. Ten of the seventeen are decisions of the Court in its Original Jurisdiction and carry (OJ) in their own neutral citations: Myrie v State of Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ); Rock Hard Cement Ltd v The State of Barbados and The Caribbean Community [2020] CCJ 2 (OJ); Rock Hard Distribution Ltd v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2018] CCJ 3 (OJ); Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v The State of Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ); SM Jaleel & Co Ltd v Co-operative Republic of Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ); Trinidad Cement Ltd v Co-operative Republic of Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ); Trinidad Cement Ltd v The Caribbean Community [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) and [2009] CCJ 4 (OJ); Trinidad Cement Ltd v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ); and Trinidad Cement Ltd v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] CCJ 4 (OJ). The misclassification was in the Table’s grouping heading only. No citation, pinpoint or proposition in the work is affected, and the Verification Register at thesovereignpressgy.com/verification now shows each of the ten under its correct jurisdiction. v1.4.0 v1.4.2

21 September 2026 — First Edition, corrected printing v1.3.0

Arbitration Act 2024 commencement and transitional provisions added; s 9(2) and s 30 treatment added; volume architecture restated as one volume; Editorial Note revised; forward-reference language removed; citation pass (see entry below). Holders of v1.2.x licences receive v1.3.0 at no charge under licence clause 8.2. Pre-release corrections, 22 September 2026: ¶7-029 and ¶8-060 (status of the Bid Protest Committee, per the Public Procurement Commission’s Annual Reports 2023–24 and 2024–25); ¶8-059 (composition of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board, Procurement Act s 16); ¶43-008 (three Caribbean Court of Justice arbitration decisions from Belize, not two).

Developments to 20 September 2026 are noted in the front matter.

Citation pass — RESOLVED 21 September 2026, v1.3.0. The authorities below were verified by the Principal against the primary texts and are cited in the work (Instruction 43). Residual: three authorities identified, judgment not yet sighted, and left in descriptive form.

Chapter As the text describes it Authority to be verified and cited
ch 41 the Persero litigation CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK [2011] SGCA 33 (first phase); PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation [2015] SGCA 30 (second phase)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation [2011] SGCA 33 (first phase); [2015] SGCA 30 (second phase)”. Cause: the party order was taken from the manuscript’s own descriptive phrasing, which named PT Perusahaan first for both phases, rather than from the judgment header. The 2011 appeal was brought by CRW. Corrected against the judgment header, 21 September 2026.
ch 41 the English Commercial Court’s decision in the Sierra Leone mining litigation Republic of Sierra Leone v SL Mining Ltd [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm)
ch 41 the Singapore appellate authority BBA v BAZ [2020] SGCA 53; BTN v BTP [2020] SGCA 105
ch 48 the English Court of Appeal’s late-1970s decision Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1978] QB 159 (CA)
ch 48 the mid-1980s only-realistic-inference framing United Trading Corp SA v Allied Arab Bank Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 554 (CA)
ch 48 the companion authority Bolivinter Oil SA v Chase Manhattan Bank NA [1984] 1 WLR 392 (CA)
ch 48 the Singapore appellate line Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd v Attorney-General (No 2) [1995] 2 SLR(R) 262; GHL Pte Ltd v Unitrack Building Construction Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 44
ch 48 the Malaysian apex confirmation Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Co Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 1 (FC)
ch 48 the House of Lords bond decision Trafalgar House Construction (Regions) Ltd v General Surety & Guarantee Co Ltd [1996] AC 199
ch 48 the strong-case authorities Simon Carves Ltd v Ensus UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 657 (TCC); Doosan Babcock Ltd v Comercializadora de Equipos y Materiales Mabe Lda [2013] EWHC 3010 (TCC)
ch 49 the modern apex decision Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd [2017] UKSC 35
ch 49 the earlier standard-form decision Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership Ltd [2002] UKHL 17

Citation pass — residual (A7)

Authority Citation Status
BBA v BAZ [2020] SGCA 53 identified, judgment not yet sighted
GHL Pte Ltd v Unitrack Building Construction Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 44 identified, judgment not yet sighted
Doosan Babcock Ltd v Comercializadora de Equipos y Materiales Mabe Lda [2013] EWHC 3010 (TCC) identified, judgment not yet sighted
Belize Social Investment Fund v K&G Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No 11 of 2015, Court of Appeal of Belize) withdrawn: the citation belongs to a different judgment; not relied on in the text
Attorney-General v Cenitech Engineering Solutions Ltd; National Contracts Commission v Cenitech Engineering Solutions Ltd
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Cenitech Engineering Solutions Ltd v Public Procurement Commission”.		 [2023] JMCA Civ 52 corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Cenitech Engineering Solutions Ltd v Public Procurement Commission [2024] JMCA App 30 corrected at source; citation checked
Grape Bay Ltd v Attorney-General of Bermuda [2000] 1 WLR 574 (PC)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “[1999] UKPC 43, [2000] 1 WLR 574”.		 corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd [1993] AC 573 (PC)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “[1993] UKPC 7, [1993] AC 573”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Ramps Logistics (Guyana) Inc v Minister of Natural Resources (High Court of Guyana, oral ruling of the Chief Justice (ag), 11 November 2022, unreported)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(High Court of Guyana, 11 November 2022)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Tropical Orchard Products Co Ltd v Ministry of Education (Bid Protest Committee, NPTAB, bid FS: NPTAB: 1229/2016/40)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(NPTAB Bid Protest Committee, 2016)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Rock Hard Cement Ltd v The State of Barbados and The Caribbean Community
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Rock Hard Cement Ltd v The State of Barbados”.		 [2020] CCJ 2 (OJ) corrected at source; citation checked
Estate of Dame Bernice Lake QC (Deceased) and another v Attorney General of Anguilla
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Estate of Dame Bernice Lake QC v Attorney General of Anguilla”.		 [2022] UKPC 33 corrected at source; citation checked
Vision Architects and Contractors Ltd v Solid Waste Management Authority (Claim No 732 of 2015, Supreme Court of Belize, 4 May 2018)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Claim No 732 of 2015, Supreme Court of Belize)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Munnings v Miller (2017/CLE/gen/01010, Supreme Court of The Bahamas, 5 September 2019)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Supreme Court of The Bahamas)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Chiverton Construction Ltd v Scrub Island Development Group Ltd (HCVAP 2009/028, Court of Appeal, British Virgin Islands, 19 September 2011)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(HCVAP 2009/028, ECSC, BVI)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
C.O. Williams Construction (St Lucia) Ltd v Inter-Island Dredging Co Ltd (SLUHCVAP2011/0017, Court of Appeal, Saint Lucia, 19 March 2012)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Saint Lucia)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Cyril Dornelly Construction Co Ltd v The Harbor Club Ltd
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Cyril Dornelly Construction v The Harbor Club”.		 (SLUHCM2018/0069, High Court, Saint Lucia, 18 March 2019)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(High Court of Justice, Saint Lucia)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
One Call Construction Co Ltd v Grenada Solid Waste Management Authority (Civil Appeal No 8 of 2009, Court of Appeal, Grenada, 13 November 2009)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Civil Appeal No 8 of 2009, Court of Appeal, Grenada)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Sutton-Herbert v Allie's Construction Company Ltd (SKBHCV2015/0067, High Court, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 25 September 2017)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(SKBHCV2015/0067, High Court, Saint Kitts and Nevis)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Volker Stevin Construction Europe BV v Vos Ltd
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Volker Stevin Construction Europe BV v VOS Ltd”.		 (HCVAP 2007/013, Court of Appeal, Grenada, 2 June 2008)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(HCVAP 2007/013, Court of Appeal, Grenada)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
White Construction Co Ltd v DCG Properties Ltd (HCVAP 2010/022, Court of Appeal, Saint Lucia, 26 September 2011)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(HCVAP 2010/022, ECSC, Saint Lucia)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No 2)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd”.		 [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC) corrected at source; citation checked
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG (UK Production)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH”.		 [2010] UKSC 14 corrected at source; citation checked
Sirius International Insurance Co (Publ) v FAI General Insurance Ltd
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Sirius International Insurance Co v FAI General Insurance Ltd”.		 [2004] UKHL 54 corrected at source; citation checked
MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defence Construction (1951) Ltd [1999] 1 SCR 619
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(1999) 1 SCR 619”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Tercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia (Transportation and Highways)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “Tercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia”.		 2010 SCC 4 corrected at source; citation checked
The Queen in Right of Ontario v Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd [1981] 1 SCR 111
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(1981) 1 SCR 111”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Yates Associates Construction Company Ltd v Blue Sand Investments Ltd (BVIHCV 2010/0218, High Court, British Virgin Islands, 31 August 2012), affirmed on this point (BVIHCVAP2012/0028, Court of Appeal, British Virgin Islands, 20 April 2016)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(BVIHCV 2010/0218, High Court, British Virgin Islands)”.		 corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
A & A Mechanical Contractors and Company Ltd v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [2022] UKPC 39
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(CV2010-01244, High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, 27 February 2012)”.		 corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Hart v Commission of Enquiry into the Las Alturas Housing Towers (Civil Appeal No P286 of 2020, Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, 9 June 2023), affirmed sub nom Hart v Chin [2025] UKPC 51
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Civil Appeal No P286 of 2020, Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, 9 June 2023)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Palm Cay Development Company Ltd v HNR Company Ltd (SCCivApp No 58 of 2024, Court of Appeal of The Bahamas, 31 December 2025)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(SCCivApp No 58 of 2024, Court of Appeal of The Bahamas)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Abdul Kadir Al Muhaidib & Sons Co v Kamel (BVIHC(COM)2024/0213, High Court, British Virgin Islands, 29 January 2026)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(BVIHC(COM)2024/0213)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Vision Architects and Contractors Ltd v Solid Waste Management Authority (Claim No 732 of 2015, Supreme Court of Belize, 4 May 2018) corrected at source; citation checked
One Call Construction Co Ltd v Grenada Solid Waste Management Authority (Civil Appeal No 14 of 2009, Court of Appeal, Grenada, 8 September 2010)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Civil Appeal No 8 of 2009, Court of Appeal, Grenada, 13 November 2009)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
C.O. Williams Construction (St Lucia) Ltd v Inter-Island Dredging Co Ltd (HCVAP 17 of 2011, Court of Appeal, Saint Lucia, 19 March 2012)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(SLUHCVAP2011/0017, Court of Appeal, Saint Lucia, 19 March 2012)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Munnings v Miller (trading as Four T’s Construction) (2017/CLE/gen/01010, Supreme Court of The Bahamas, 5 September 2019) corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Tropical Orchard Products Co Ltd v Ministry of Education (NPTAB Bid Protest Committee, FS: NPTAB: 1229/2016/40, heard 29 November 2016)
Superseded, and left visible: this cell previously read “(Bid Protest Committee, NPTAB, bid FS: NPTAB: 1229/2016/40)”.		 corrected at source; citation checked
Emile Elias and NH International (Caribbean) Ltd v Eugene Reynald (CV2012-02083, High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, 2 July 2014) removed: the judgment does not decide the proposition stated; not relied on in the text
Susan Jeremiah-Alexander and Felix Alexander v Joel John trading as “Captivative Solutions” (CV2017-04122, High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, 24 June 2022) removed: the judgment does not decide the proposition stated; not relied on in the text
Ramsbury Properties Ltd v Ocean View Construction Ltd (NEVHCVAP2025/0009, Court of Appeal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 29 June 2026) removed: the judgment does not decide the proposition stated; not relied on in the text
Janin Caribbean Construction Ltd v Wilkinson — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
National Stadium Project (Grenada) Corporation v NH International — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Equilibrio Solutions (Jamaica) Ltd v Peter Jervis — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Geotechvision Enterprises Ltd v E-Learning Jamaica Co Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
National Recovery Ltd v Attorney General of Jamaica — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Butler v COK Sodality Co-operative Credit Union Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Sagicor Bank Jamaica Ltd v Harley Corporation Guarantee Trust Co Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Brian Mehandi v Dhamendra Singh — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Rock Hard Cement Ltd v The State of Barbados — corrected at source; citation checked
Rock Hard Distribution Ltd v The State of Trinidad and Tobago — corrected at source; citation checked
Caribbean Border and Safety Technologies Ltd v The Attorney General — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Volker Stevin Construction Europe BV v — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
C.O. Williams Construction Ltd v Attorney General — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Abbotts Construction — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Sutton-Herbert v Allie’s Construction Company Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Cyril Dornelly Construction — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Lutchmeesingh’s Transport Contractors Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Palm Cay Development Company Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Replay Destinations (Bahamas) Ltd — corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
National Infrastructure Development Co Ltd v Construtora OAS SA (Civil Appeal No P018 of 2023, Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, 24 April 2026) corrected at source; citation checked
Baillou v Bacon (2021/CLE/gen/FP/00168, Supreme Court of The Bahamas), affd sub nom Bacon v Baillou (SCCivApp No 86 of 2025, Court of Appeal of The Bahamas, 2 June 2026) corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Trinidad Cement Ltd v The State of Trinidad and Tobago (Rock Hard Distribution Ltd and Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Ltd intervening) [2019] CCJ 4 (OJ) corrected at source; citation and proposition checked
Belize Social Investment Fund v Insurance Corporation of Belize Ltd (Claim No CV 214 of 2022, High Court of Belize, 25 February 2026) corrected at source; citation and proposition checked

Corrections made before publication

The entries below were found and corrected in the source before any edition was published, and are recorded here because a corrections record that shows only what escaped is not a record of the checking. They are kept separate from the errata above for that reason: no published printing carried them.

What was found Where Disposition
A citation to a “Public Procurement Commission Act 2003”. No such Act exists. The Public Procurement Commission is established by the Constitution of Guyana, Article 212W and following. Two places in the source: ¶1-043 and ¶8-059. The second asserted the fictitious Act and Article 212W in the same sentence, so the text stated both that the Commission is statutory and that it is constitutional. Removed at source, 20 September 2026, before First Edition v1.4.0 was published on 1 October 2026. No published edition carried the citation.

Governing the Black Box: Rights, Content, and the Law of Artificial Intelligence in a Multipolar World

No corrections recorded.

Nobody Wants to Get Wet

No corrections recorded.

Don’t Just Leave: How Caribbean Professionals Build Careers That Survive AI

No corrections recorded.

Steering the Rollout: A Practical Guide to Governing AI in Guyanese and Caribbean Business

No corrections recorded.

How to notify a correction

Corrections may be notified to the Press at publisher@thesovereignpressgy.com. State the title, the version you hold, the page, and the correction proposed.

This page was last reviewed on 14 August 2026.