A dispute over a parcel of land in West Bay that has dragged on for three decades was finally settled last week, with the ruling of a judge who described the delay in the case as “appalling”.
Grand Court Justice Jalil Asif, KC, in a judgment issued on 14 Jan., wrote, “This is the most appalling case of procedural delay in the conduct of proceedings that I can recall having seen in over 35 years in practice and on the Bench.”
He blamed the plaintiffs involved in the case for the decades-long delay in the matter coming before the court.
The dispute, which was finally aired in a court of law last month, centred on a parcel of land that the late Henry Irvin Jackson agreed to sell to his cousin, the late Jane Mary Patino, in March 1995.
Agreement signed on ‘back of carton of cigarettes’
According to judge’s written ruling, it was indicated that Jackson originally had signed an agreement to sell the land to Patino “on the back of a carton of cigarettes” on 15 June 1992.
“I was told in argument that the original is still in the defendant’s attorneys’ possession,” the judge wrote. “The relevant events, which are likely to be an issue in this case, therefore date back around 30 years.”
The court heard that after Patino died in 2014, Brenda Gail Patino Aleman obtained a grant of probate in respect of Patino’s estate in 2018. Jackson died in 2005, after which Pamela Jennifer Watler was granted probate in his estate in 2009.
A writ concerning the ownership of the land was issued by Jackson and Watler’s attorneys, A S McField and Associates, on 15 Feb. 2001, just before the sixth anniversary of Jackson formally signing the agreement.
Fraud allegations
The judge noted that a statement of claim in relation to the case had made “some very serious allegations of fraud against Mrs. Patino”, and had indicated that Jackson at the time was retired and “no longer capable of handling his own affairs”.
The statement indicated that Jackson had agreed to sell two parcels of land to Patino to settle debts he owned her. He signed a document to transfer Block 9A Parcel 476 in West Bay to Patino in March 1995. However, at the time of that transfer, the statement noted, Jackson was not the registered owner of that parcel. Three years later, he became the registered owner of a nearby area of land, Block 91 Parcel 477.
The plaintiffs claimed that Patino had marked off Parcel 476 on the transfer document and replaced it with Parcel 477, and used the altered document to register the land in her name. The plaintiffs stated in their claim that this was a “false and fraudulent transfer”, and requested an inhibition on the title of the land, to prevent Patino from selling it.
On 20 April 2001, the law firm acting for Patino, Ritch and Conolly, wrote on her behalf denying the allegation, but consenting to the inhibition on selling the land, pending litigation to settle the matter.
In the meantime, Patino’s lawyers, later in April 2001, filed a court document indicating her intention to defend herself against the allegations.
The consent order to block the sale of the land by Patino, following a number of delays, was eventually approved by the court on 7 March 2003.
In May 2005, Walkers took over representing the plaintiffs from McField and Associates, but in January 2006, informed Ritch and Conolly that they were no longer acting on their behalf. In May that year, attorney Clyde Allen informed Ritch and Conolly he had been retained to represent the plaintiffs.
Over the years that followed, there had been some correspondence between Allen and Ritch and Conolly over the case, including indications of the intention to proceed with the claim, but the matter did not move ahead.
On 28 Feb. 2014, Patino died, the judge noted, after which Allen again wrote to the law firm saying he would “like to finally deal with this matter”. Ritch and Conolly responded that it was awaiting documents to amend the plaintiffs’ claim and that its client was required to be served a Notice of Intention to Proceed.
The next correspondence of which the court was aware, Asif wrote, was an email in February 2017 from Allen again informing Ritch and Conolly of his client’s intention to proceed with the case. He noted at the time that Watler claimed that rent for Parcel 477 paid to Patino was hers.
After that, there appears to have been no correspondence between the parties from 2018 until late 2023, the judge noted.
‘Defendant finally lost patience’
“On 18 December 2023, the Defendant finally lost patience and filed a Notice of Intention to Proceed [with a counterclaim] and a summons to strike out the [plaintiffs’] claim both for want of prosecution and as an abuse of power,” the judge wrote.
A hearing date was set for 4 July last year, but had to be rescheduled due to the close passage of Hurricane Beryl, which led to the closure of the court.
The case was finally heard by Asif on 5 Dec. 2024.
In his ruling last week, the judge noted, “Despite the lengthy period to prepare for and respond to the summons, the Plaintiffs did not submit any affidavit evidence in response. In addition, the Plaintiffs’ skeleton argument was only exchanged and provided to the Court on the morning of the hearing, which is par for the Plaintiffs’ conduct of the case generally.”
He said that while there had been “extreme” delays during Allen’s engagement in the case, there had also been significant delays when McField and Walkers were the legal representatives, “which tends to suggest that the primary driver of the delays in the case is the Plaintiffs rather than the lawyers”.
He noted that Watler had ignored requirements to present “cogent evidence” of her allegations of fraud against Patino and to progress the claim to a timely conclusion.
“The Plaintiffs have chosen not to put any evidence before the Court to apologise … for their dilatory conduct of the action; to demonstrate why the proceedings should not be characterised as an abuse of process; or to put forward any excuse or explanation for their conduct,” the judge wrote.
Abuse of process
Saying it appeared the plaintiffs never had an intention to conclude their legal action, he had “no hesitation in striking out this case as an abuse of process”.
He added that the period of delay, of 19 years and 10 months since May 2003, “is clearly inordinate” and “inexcusable”.
As well as striking out the claim, Asif ordered that the inhibition against selling the parcel of land be removed and declared that Patino’s estate is the legal owner of Block 9A Parcel 477.
He also ordered the plaintiffs to pay Patino’s costs of the action. “Furthermore,” he wrote, “the Plaintiffs’ conduct is unreasonable to an extremely high degree, such that I order the Defendant’s costs to be taxed on the indemnity basis, if not agreed.”
Related Videos
