Women funding their own legal costs
A legal battle challenging the closure of part of West Bay Road to make way for a new hotel will continue, following a decision in the Court of Appeal on Monday.
The court issued a “protective costs order” shielding the four West Bay women behind the legal action from being left with an extensive bill for their opponents’ legal costs if they lose the case.
The four women are already funding their own legal costs in this action – an appeal against Justice Alexander Henderson’s decision that their original challenge to the road closure was not filed in time.
They have dug into their own pockets and also raised money from supporters in the community to continue the fight after being denied legal aid for the appeal, which has now been scheduled for either Nov. 5 or Nov. 6.
But Monday’s decision was crucial because it means the women won’t be responsible for reimbursing legal costs incurred by the attorney general and co-defendant Dart Realty as well.
During a brief hearing in the Court of Appeal on Monday, Reshma Sharma for the attorney general indicated that the government would not pursue costs from the women in this case.
Sir John Chadwick, chairman of the Court of Appeal panel, also made a protective costs order, ruling that Dart Realty could not make a claim against the women for its own legal costs following the conclusion of the appeal.
He also ruled that the appeal must focus solely on the question of whether Justice Henderson was correct in his decision that the women’s action was not filed within the time frame allowed.
In their original motion, the four West Bay women – Alice Mae Coe, Betty Ebanks, Annie Multon and Ezmie Smith – had claimed the deal to close the road, easing the way for Dart Realty to build the new Kimpton hotel on Seven Mile Beach, violated their constitutional rights.
They argued that the people of the Cayman Islands enjoyed a “common law” right of way over the road and its many access points to the beach, which they said had been used by Caymanians for more than 50 years.
The merits of their argument were not considered by Justice Henderson, who ruled that the action had not been brought within the legally mandated time frame of 12 months from when the initial decision was taken.
He wrote: “This challenge to the decision to close the affected road is brought too late to be considered on its merits.”
Arguments in the initial case centered on when the decision was actually taken to close the road and when the clock should have started ticking on the 12-month time limit for legal challenges.
If the appeal is successful, the case will go back to the Grand Court for the arguments to be considered fully.
The four women welcomed Monday’s decision, saying, “This enables us to carry on with the substantive appeal. We believe in a God of justice and we hope that the community continues to support us.”
They say they are bringing the appeal on behalf of the Cayman community, including the 4,000 people who signed a petition against the road closure. Their fundraisng efforts will continue right up to the appeal hearing date.
Related Videos
If the court rule in their favor who will bear the cost of rebuilding the road now that it has been closed. Also will this mean that the CIG will now owe dart back all the money that was spent building the new highway as their part of the deal, which I believe was in excess of 30 Million Dollars.
I does sound like they are expected to lose the case anyway given the request for a protective costs order.
I give them credit for fighting the good fight but I am not sure this is a worthwhile battle. It sounds to me like this is a fight against a deal that Cayman would have greatly benefited from just like the whole BT Dump fiasco, and look where that left us. With a constantly smoldering pile of trash in the capitol, that would have already been dealt with by someone who has the resources to get it done..