BUSINESSMAN Steve Ferguson has again failed in his attempt to have the High Court in TT stop the State from demanding information from him as it seeks to enforce a US$131 million judgment against him in Miami.

In a ruling on October 15, Justice Frank Seepersad said his latest challenge was almost identical to one previously filed and did not “establish any fundamental factual development” to justify having a court reconsider granting an injunction.

He held Ferguson had not followed due process and invoked the court again to “re-litigate” his complaint already considered.

Ferguson filed the emergency application for an injunction on September 27.

Ferguson has complained that the State is pursuing “aggressive measures” to enforce the 2023 Miami judgment against him and two others, including demanding the production of documents, information and the taking of depositions.

In May, he filed a similar application, which Justice Nadia Kangaoo dismissed in a constitutional complaint. She is still presiding over that matter, but Ferguson has asked for her to recuse herself. She is expected to give a ruling and make a statement in that application at the end of October.

However, Ferguson intends to have both complaints joined.

Seepersad said he could not exercise an appellate function and it would be inappropriate for him to express a view on Kangaloo’s ruling, particularly on Ferguson’s claim against her of apparent bias.

Seepersad said Ferguson had had sufficient time to apply for an injunction in his previous challenge if he felt the move to depose him amounted to a substantial and fundamental change of circumstance.

He said a party could not fight the same battle twice unless there was a material change, and in Ferguson’s case there was none.

In the latest complaint, Ferguson said the State is demanding information from him, his children and his attorneys. He is expected to be deposed on October 24 in the Miami courts.

He says if he declines to submit to a deposition, he is liable to be held in contempt of court and have his appeal of the 2023 judgment rejected.

To this, Seepersad said, “Rights are never absolute and they are always subject to lawful limitations. If the laws in Florida do not provide for disclosure of the information which is being sought, then those arguments can be traversed when the hearing is occasioned in that jurisdiction on October 24, 2024.

“This court must fiercely defend the administration of justice and it is paramount that due process is followed.”

He also said he had a duty to insulate the litigation process from “multi-dimensional and duplicitous attacks...

“This court is not satisfied there has been any fundamental or substantial change which can justify giving the claimant another bite at the cherry.”

On Ferguson’s complaint about possible self-incrimination, Seepersad said it was “difficult to appreciate on what basis a court in TT could or should grant relief to protect the claimant from the potential breach of his rights under the US Constitution.

“T