The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) is demanding that environmental activists lodge a $200,000 bond to cover its legal costs associated with defending their Judicial Review action.

The oil explorer, which is rapidly closing in on completion of its Perseverance One exploratory well, in Supreme Court documents filed last week urged that the legal challenge to the project's approvals and permits be halted until its opponents met the "security for costs" demand.

John Minns, a partner with the Graham, Thompson & Company law firm, alleged in a January 25, 2021, affidavit that Waterkeepers Bahamas and the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay (Save the Bays) had failed to respond to his firm's December 2020 request that they provide evidence showing they can meet any legal costs awarded in BPC's favour.

"Waterkeepers Bahamas was incorporated on or about October 11, 2018," Mr Minns alleged. "Despite the same, my firm has been unable to find any indication that Waterkeepers Bahamas carries on any commercial business operations within The Bahamas, or owns any assets within The Bahamas.

"In the circumstances, it is my belief that Waterkeepers Bahamas does not have any assets, or sufficient assets, to satisfy an order to pay BPC's costs if so ordered." Mr Minns made the same argument about the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay, and urged "that all further proceedings be stayed pending such security being provided".

The accompanying filings provide an insight into how the BPC Judicial Review action is proving extremely lucrative for the attorneys involved. BPC's high-powered London-based QC, Clare Montgomery, is charging £1,500 per hour, or $2,055 at current exchange rates, for her work.

The two Graham, Thompson & Company attorneys assisting her, Leif Farquharson and Adrian Hunt, charge $700 per hour and $550 per hour, respectively.

The environmental activists and their attorney, Fred Smith QC, have blasted BPC for proceeding with its "security for costs" bid even as the Government withdrew its similar demands on the basis that it runs contrary to the principle that Judicial Review actions - which typically challenge decisions by government bodies - should be heard speedily.

They argue that BPC is trying to bog down the Judicial Review action with procedural delaying tactics in a bid to ensure that the Perseverance One well, whose 45-60 day drilling timetable suggests it will be completed by mid-February, is finished before the Supreme Court can hear the merits of their argument

The February 17-18 security for costs hearing may well coincide with when Perseverance One is completed, and Mr Smith and his clients have repeatedly asserted that "security for costs" is being increasingly employed in The Bahamas to thwart public interest litigation by imposing financial hurdles those bringing such actions will have difficulty meeting.