The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

SANDALS Royal Bahamian and its parent have won two legal victories in just over a month against a US couple who generated massive global publicity in making claims of indecent assault against an ex-butler.

The resort chain’s latest win saw Justice Neil Brathwaite, in a March 22 verdict, dismiss John Pascarella and Ashley Reid-Pascarella’s bid to strike out much of the defence submitted by the Cable Beach resort and Sandals Resorts International against the couple’s claim for breach of contract and negligence stemming from the assault.

He ruled that the hotel chain’s defence was not “so incurably bad” as to warrant its dismissal, instead finding that there are serious issues in dispute that need to be determined via a full trial with the US couple relying on Bahamian consumer protection laws to counter Sandals’ reliance on the guest contract they signed.

Justice Brathwaite’s verdict was released just over a month after the Pascarellas suffered an earlier legal reversal when Justice Camille Darville-Gomez, in a February 13, 2024, ruling gave permission for Sandals Royal Bahamian and its holding company, West Bay Management Ltd, to file a counterclaim against the couple. Adrian Whitehead, Sandals Royal Bahamian’s general manager, in an affidavit said the resort “has concluded it has a strong counterclaim” but had not moved on this earlier because its “priority was filing its defence” to the Pascarellas’ action “given that the threat of a default judgment was looming”.

This explanation was accepted by Judge Darville-Gomez, who said that allowing the counterclaim to be lodged would not “prejudice” the US couple’s case. She also rejected arguments by Carl Bethel KC, the former attorney general now representing the Pascarellas, that Sandals was using its economic might to “drive them from the seat of justice” by demanding they post a bond to cover its legal costs.

Justice Brathwaite, in his verdict, noted that the couple had booked a destination wedding at Sandals Royal Bahamian in April 2016 for 70 guests. However, “on the eve of their wedding” they reported that Moral Adderley, the Sandals butler assigned to them, had “indecently assaulted” Mrs Reid-Pascarella.

Adderley vigorously denied that such an attack occurred even though he pleaded guilty to indecent assault in a Magistrate’s Court, and was fined and discharged. He said he changed his initial “not guilty” plea in an effort to escape serving prison time and thus missing his father’s funeral.

The US couple received widespread TV and print coverage in both the US and UK media when the contents of their US legal filings were disclosed. However, those cases were dismissed, and they were forced to come before the Bahamian Supreme Court with an action against Sandals Royal Bahamian and its parent seeking damages for breach of contract and negligence.

They are asserting that the resort “owed a contractual and tortious duty of care”, and that it is “vicariously liable” for Mr Adderley’s actions. As part of their claim, they argued that key parts of Sandals’ defence should be struck out because they “disclose no reasonable cause of action or are otherwise an abuse of the court’s process”.

In particular, the Pascarellas denied agreeing to clauses in the guest contract that required them to give written notice of their claim within six months of the incident occurring to Unique Travel Corporation, Sandals’ booking agent, and to launch a lawsuit within one year. This was despite them signing the contract.

The US couple argued that the Consumer Protection Act 2006’s section 41 prevents a party from restricting or excluding liability for a contract they have breached, and these sections in the guest contract did not meet the Bahamian law’s “reasonableness” requirements.

And they are also using the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Act 2007 to argue that the restrictive clauses are “unfair” because they were not negotiated or brought to their attention. The Pascarellas said Sandals has now altered its website so that prospective guests now have to click through it, but the resort chain argued that Bahamian consumer protection laws did not apply.

Justice Brathwaite, in his ruling, said he saw “nothing onerous” in the clauses complained of by the Pascarellas because these sought only to limit, rather than exclude liability. And he also found that the Consumer Protection Act clause relied on by the couple did not come into play until it was determined that a breach of contract had occurred.

Refusing to strike out any part of Sandals’ defence, the judge added: “The first defendant [Sandals Royal Bahamian] suggests that all reasonable steps were taken to keep the plaintiffs harmless and safe from any assault by having in-house and external private security on property; by training [Adderley] as a butler; and by having adequate surveillance cameras about the property to monitor guests and employees.

“This is a viable explanation or defence to the plaintiffs’ claims that the first defendant breached their duty to train their employees and have protective measures in place such as camera and security personnel.” Sandals also denied that it was “vicariously liable” for Adderley’s actions, saying these were not part of his employment duties and he was not authorised to do so.

The resort chain argued that Adderley “acted outside the scope of his employment, notwithstanding the strict sexual harassment policy” of Sandals, and said its offer to reimburse the Pascarellas their wedding costs was not an admission of liability but “a gesture of goodwill” that was refused.