Privy Council in London granted Bimini Blue Coalition's injunction application ...stopping dredging activities in Bimini

Privy Council Grants Injunction To Stop Dredging

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

In a stunning new development, the Privy Council in London today granted Bimini Blue Coalition's injunction application stopping dredging activities from continuing in Bimini, reversing a decision by the Bahamas Court of Appeal on Monday.

The injunction is effective immediately. As consequence, Resorts World Bimini developers cannot dredge unless and until they can persuade the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court that the permit they have was properly granted with proper consideration by the Director of Physical Planning and that additional conditions are satisfied.

Dredging activities in Bimini began over a week ago.

May 23, 2014

Tribune 242

Privy Council could hear review of [Elizabeth by-election] Election Court decision

Privy Council could hear review of Election Court decision
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:


The review of the Election Court decision handed down last month, validating all of the protest votes in the Elizabeth by-election, could go to the Privy Council, Attorney General John Delaney told The Nassau Guardian recently.

The Office of the Attorney General is currently conducting a review of the decision, which was handed down in favor of the Progressive Liberal Party and its Elizabeth candidate Ryan Pinder on March 23.

"We're having a look to see what avenues might exist with respect to any possibility of having a judicial review with respect to the point of law to the ruling," Delaney said last week.

"Of course there is the position on the statute that on the election court there is no appeal from it. So it's analysis that is presently being done. We'll have to take a look to see whether it is possible to have a review sometime by the Privy Council.

Hours after the decision of the Election Court, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said the Office of the Attorney General will review the ruling.

The justices validated all of the five protest votes cast in Pinder's favor in the February 16 by-election, resulting in him winning by three votes.

But Ingraham indicated that the Free National Movement has concerns about the reasoning behind the decision.

"We were surprised by the reasoning for the decision of the Election Court," Ingraham said. "It is outside anything we have known up to now as to the meaning of our law. We will therefore have the Office of the Attorney General undertake a review of the decision so that determinations can be made as to the extent to which any consideration ought to be given to either amending the law or calling upon a higher court to determine the validity of the reasoning issued by the court.

"It is our purpose and intent to ensure that orderly, fair and predictable elections are held in The Bahamas."

Delaney told The Guardian that the review could result in recommendations for changes to be made to the law.

"If there is to be a review, the venues might be a review of a point of law or sometime akin to a judicial review type thing," he said. "But it's really premature for me to speculate on that at this time because, as I said, we're just taking a look to see about possibilities in that connection."

In the Speech from the Throne read on Wednesday by newly-appointed Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes, the government pledged to bring legislation to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act.

An official from the Office of the Attorney General told The Guardian that the review would be done in short order.

The official, who did not want to be named, said the review would be conducted to determine what, if any amendments needs to be made to the Parliamentary Elections Act.

"The government asked that we conduct a review and in short order, whatever changes if at all would be communicated to Cabinet and Cabinet would seek to have those changes, if such are recommended to legislation, whatever legislation in the form of an amendment, would be brought to the House of Assembly."

He stressed that a judicial review is not the same as an appeal.

"An appeal might make certain findings, it might overturn certain things that may exist," said the official. "A judicial review or reference makes findings but there is nothing that can be done. So the review can determine that the decision made was not in accordance with the law but it can't overturn the decision or ruling made."


thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Sidney Stubbs, Holy Cross Member of Parliament Legal Team Intends to Request An Annulment of The Bankruptcy Order Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson Issued Against Him

If the court grants an annulment, this essentially means that Mr. Sidney Stubbs would no longer be a bankrupt

No Appeal For Stubbs

 

 

 

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

16th December 2004

 

Attorneys for Holy Cross Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs are heading back to court today and are expected to report to Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall that Mr. Stubbs has no appeal pending before the Privy Council.

Last month, Sir Burton dismissed an application to have Mr. Stubbs’s bankruptcy order set aside, but he reserved judgment on an alternative request for an annulment of that order until it could be confirmed whether the case was being appealed to the high court in London.

The Bahama Journal has learnt that Mr. Stubbs’s legal team now intends to pursue the request for an annulment of the bankruptcy order Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson issued against him on March 30.

If the court grants an annulment, this essentially means that Mr. Stubbs would no longer be a bankrupt.

The fact that he has no appeal to the Privy Council is likely to raise new arguments over the interpretation of the constitution.

Legal advisors have told the Bahama Journal that an application for an annulment does not technically constitute an appeal.

Some scholars interpret the constitution to mean that Mr. Stubbs can only remain in his seat as long as he has an appeal pending.

But the MP’s legal team is expected to argue that what the constitution is in fact saying on this point is that he is entitled to the extension of time he has secured from parliament as long as he has the “right to appeal.”

This new development in the Stubbs legal debacle may spark renewed political debate over his fate and whether a by election is likely.

One political observer claimed that parliament was misled in September when it passed a resolution to grant Mr. Stubbs a six-month time extension to appeal the matter on the basis that he intended to appeal the ruling.

“You have time limits to lodge appeals and prosecute them and if the time has passed, and he has not lodged the appeal, that is the end of the matter,” the observer said.  “The moment he fails to lodge it in a timely manner under the constitution his seat became vacant.”

But government and Progressive Liberal Party officials who continue to express open support for Mr. Stubbs view the situation another way.

They believe that an annulment is enough to get Mr. Stubbs back in his seat when the House of Assembly convenes next month after its Christmas recess.

Mr. Stubbs has been out of the House for nine months now and has until March to have the matter cleared up.  It would be a full year since he would have been out of the House.

The MP has insisted that he continues to work in his constituency and has claimed that he still has the support of the majority of his constituents.

A group of them even went as far as filing a summons in the Supreme Court in support of Mr. Stubbs, but Sir Burton asked the constituents to desist from interfering with the judicial process and said what they did could amount to contempt of court.

Even though Mr. Stubbs has said that his former creditor, Gina Gonzalez, has been repaid all that is owed to her, he cannot return to parliament as long as he is still a bankrupt.

Sidney Stubbs, Embattled Holy Cross MP - Bankruptcy Trial Adjourned

Sidney Stubbs was forced to go back to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal in July on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to hear his bankruptcy appeal

PLP Member of Parliament - Sidney Stubbs’ Bankruptcy Matter Adjourned Again

 

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

September 22, 2004

 

 

  

Supreme Court Judge Jeannie Thompson on Wednesday adjourned the Sidney Stubbs bankruptcy matter to November 9, after the Holy Cross MP’s attorneys indicated that they had aborted the line of argument originally planned.

The amendment to their summons resulted in the judge putting off the matter once again.

Mr. Stubbs was forced to go back to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal in July on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Attorney Wayne Munroe, who represents Mr. Stubbs’ creditor, Gina Gonzalez, explained that the matter of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case still has to be clarified.

Members of Mr. Stubbs’ legal team had originally given notice that they intended to argue for the reversal of the bankruptcy order under Section 18 of the Bankruptcy Act, which outlines the circumstances under which a reversal of a bankruptcy order may be made.

But on Tuesday, they changed the summons, giving notice that they intend to argue that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to hear the case.  They plan to assert essentially that there is no Act or rule under which this jurisdiction is specified.

As mentioned, because of the change, the parties have been given more time to prepare their arguments.

Mr. Stubbs has actually hired new attorneys, led by Thomas Evans.  The MP still has as part of his legal team - his parliamentary colleague, attorney Keod Smith, but Charles Mackay is no longer representing him.

Mr. Munroe had indicated during a recent appearance before Justice Thompson that an issue had arisen over whether Mr. Smith, who is also the MP for Mount Moriah, is in contempt of court for comments he made to the press in relation to this matter.

But that issue reportedly did not come up when the parties met in chambers Wednesday.

After coming out of the court, Mr. Smith told reporters, “The issue of jurisdiction will be discussed.  It will be argued before the judge on the 9^th and at that point, the judge will determine whether in fact she has jurisdiction to hear an application from Mr. Stubbs who was adjudicated a bankrupt.”

Mr. Stubbs’ attorneys assert that he can under law bring the case back to court.  But Mr. Munroe argues that only the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who has been appointed trustee in bankruptcy, can move the court to reverse the decision against Mr. Stubbs.

As already reported by the Journal, Mr. Stubbs’ legal woes began on November 28, 1996 when a Supreme Court action was filed requiring him to pay a $55,000 debt with interest to Ms. Gonzalez.

As Mr. Stubbs was preparing to head back to court, notice was being given in the House of Assembly Wednesday that the government intends to bring a resolution seeking to extend the time for him to clear up the bankruptcy matter.

But FNM officials have indicated that they would stage a demonstration in front of the House of Assembly against such a plan.

They pointed out that the Constitution only provides an extension if an MP has avenues for an appeal.  They claim Mr. Stubbs has none.

One PLP official told the Bahama Journal that Mr. Stubbs also plans to appeal before the Privy Council if he is unsuccessful in local courts.

At stake is his seat in the House of Assembly.  He has been absent from the House for the past six months, after Justice Thompson declared him a bankrupt on March 30.

Another six-month extension from the House of Assembly, as is being pushed by the government, could mean his seat on the backbench could be vacant for up to a year.