The Tribune

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

AN ex-Cabinet Minister said yesterday that he was “not about to lay down and play docile” amid an ongoing legal battle with the Bahamas Real Estate Association (BREA), with a judicial review looming in the next round of the contentious dispute.

BREA, the regulatory body which oversees the practice of real estate business and the licensing of real estate agents in the Bahamas, has for over a year been locked in a legal battle with the former Cabinet minister George Smith over the publication of his name among 70 realtors who had failed to pay their due licence fees.

Justice Deborah Fraser, in a May 12, 2015, decision, ruled in Mr Smith’s favour, accepting his argument that BREA had violated section 35 of the Real Estate (Brokers and Salesmen) Act 1995. This requires the Real Estate Board to give a hearing to all applications made to it under that law. The application in this case was one by Mr Smith for ‘re-registration’, after his name was published in a newspaper advertisement among 70 realtors who had failed to pay their due licence fees.

Those realtors ceased to be registered under the Real Estate (Brokers and Salesman) Act 1995, and were no longer authorised to engage in the real estate business. BREA’s president Carla Sweeting argued then that the Board felt Mr Smith never applied for such a hearing in his July 21, 2014, letter to them - a position the judge disagreed with.

Justice Fraser’s decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, which outlined its reasons in a written ruling yesterday. “We were of the view that the respondent’s right to be present and represented at the Board meeting “in support of his application” in respect of an “application under the Act” could not properly be sustained. The second difficulty was that the learned judge Fraser J went astray in coming to the conclusion that the BREA Board arrived at an actionable decision under the Act. As a result, the appellant succeeded on this appeal and having regard to our conclusions it was unnecessary to consider the other grounds submitted,” the Court of Appeal said, ordering that the declarations granted by the trial judge be set aside.

Mr Smith had been granted a declaration that BREA’s refusal to renew his licence and membership violated the 1995 Act’s provisions and was “against administrative jurisprudence and the law generally”. The Supreme Court also ordered that Mr Smith’s damages, which he alleged to be $250,000, be assessed by the Supreme Court registrar.

Mr Smith contended that the Supreme Court judge’s ruling was fair and correct. “I think that BREA was wrong not to have extended the courtesy to me and any longstanding member of the association, whose only error was a lapse in memory in terms of sending my dues in in advance of the date. They took me off the actual register so I ceased being a member, which I though was unfair having been a Member of Parliament before the Act came into being and having spoken in support of the Act. The whole thing was most improper, most inconsiderate and most selective,” said Mr Smith.

He said that the matter is now set for a judicial review this month. “I am not about to lay down and play docile because some foolish president of the association decides to conduct what I consider to be an unfair vendetta against me and the other people affected,” he said. “I have been in too many battles for that. This should have never happened.”