The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

CANADIAN fashion mogul Peter Nygard reportedly threatened to fire workers who were allegedly dredging sand for his property because they were inefficient, a Supreme Court judge heard yesterday.

Committal proceedings for Mr Nygard continued before Justice Rhonda Bain concerning his alleged breach of an order during an ongoing judicial review to determine whether the fashion designer had illegally increased the size of his property.

The Lyford Cay resident was not present in the Ansbacher House courtroom as he had been excused on Friday from the proceedings after his lawyer Elliot Lockhart, QC, successfully applied to Justice Bain for him to be excused from the scheduled proceedings until January 23, 2017, when a decision is expected in the matter.

Before the start of yesterday’s hearing, Fred Smith, QC, and lead lawyer for Save The Bays, raised a preliminary point that Mr Nygard had on two occasions been ordered to file his submissions and/or supporting documents concerning his defence to the contempt proceeding.

Mr Smith argued it would not be permissible for counsel to put questions to a witness which are not based on the case the party is advancing.

“I’ll object to any question which does not fall within the case,” Mr Smith added.

Mr Lockhart resumed his cross-examination of witnesses stemming from a recent site visit to the property that was conducted on October 3 by the judge, officers of the court and a delegation from Save The Bays.

Mr Lockhart questioned the co-head of a security consultancy firm that conducted surveillance of Nygard Cay in December 2014 and swore an affidavit in April 2015.

“Prior to 1986 you were a member of the Royal Bahamas Police Force?” the lawyer asked.

“I served 30 years in the regular force,” the witness said.

“You were a specialist in criminal investigation?” Mr Lockhart asked. The witness said yes.

“With respect to these proceedings, did you do an investigation?” the lawyer then asked.

“My remit was to do a particular thing. I did what I was asked to do,” the private investigator said.

“Do you know of a company called Nygard Holdings?” the lawyer then asked. The witness said he did not.

“Do you know a lawyer, Melissa Hall?” Mr Lockhart further probed. The consultant said he did.

“Did you see her with respect to this case?” Mr Lockhart asked.

Mr Smith objected to the line of questioning saying: “There is no case put forward by Mr Nygard in submissions or affidavit concerning Melissa Hall or Nygard Holdings.”

Mr Smith said he was not seeking to bar the Lyford Cay resident from defending himself “but Mr Nygard is not above the law.”

“As the coalition must put its case to the defendant so must he,” Mr Smith concluded.

Mr Lockhart resumed his cross-examination, asking the witness: “Who is the coalition?”

“I don’t know,” the witness said.

“Who is the entity you’re speaking of in paragraph four of your affidavit?” Mr Lockhart asked

Mr Smith, again, objected to the line of questioning, arguing that there is a procedure for such.

“Is this your affidavit?” Mr Lockhart asked the witness. The private investigator said it was.

He was asked if paragraphs four through six, which spoke to legal terms, were his own words. The witness said no.

“Did you go to Nygard Cay?” the lawyer asked.

“Yes. I went in the mornings and the evenings on most of the days,” the witness said.

“And following each exercise your son submitted a report?” Mr Lockhart asked.

The witness answered in the affirmative and said the reports were compiled by his son as a collaboration effort.

“Did you speak to anyone connected to Mr Nygard during the surveillance period?” Mr Lockhart asked.

The witness said he did not. He also said he didn’t know anyone connected to the Lyford Cay resident in a follow-up question.

“Did you see Peter Nygard dredging in any of the areas of the pictures?” the lawyer probed.

“No,” the senior private investigator said.

Mr Lockhart asked the witness about paragraph 27 in his affidavit.

The security consultant said he observed Mr Nygard speaking to persons who were working “and he cursed them out, saying he was going to fire them because they weren’t working effectively.”

Mr Lockhart asked the witness where he was positioned when the utterances were made.

“I was on Mr (Louis) Bacon’s property when I heard these things,” the witness said.

“Is this the same property as Point House?” Mr Lockhart asked.

“I’m not sure,” the witness said.

“What distance you were away when this was said?” the lawyer then asked.

The senior private investigator answered “100 yards.”

“Do you appreciate there’s a channel for incoming vessel to access Nygard Cay?” the lawyer asked.

The witness said: “I don’t know.”

In re-examination, the witness said he was conducting a “secret investigation” to see if any dredging was going on at Nygard Cay.

The proceedings continue on Tuesday.

Save The Bays’ battle with Mr Nygard over the construction/development activities at his Lyford Cay home stem from allegations that the activities have led to substantial growth of the property.

The group claims that the Lyford Cay resident has almost doubled the size of his property, from 3.25 acres to 6.1 acres, since he acquired it in 1984, by allegedly reclaiming Crown land from the sea. The advocacy group has alleged that Mr Nygard achieved this without the necessary permits and approvals, claims that have been denied by the fashion designer.

In 2015, Justice Bain was asked to recuse herself from committal proceedings involving Mr Nygard through a notice of motion filed in the Supreme Court by his former lawyer on the grounds of bias. However, in January, Justice Bain said Mr Nygard had not proved there was evidence of bias or apparent bias towards him and found the accusations to be “scandalous”.

The Court of Appeal, in June, affirmed Justice Bain’s rejection of the application in an appeal of the decision by the Lyford Cay resident.