The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An appeal judge has refused to stay committal proceedings against one party to a long-running Rum Cay feud, who claim their demolition actions had Government approval.

Appellate Justice Jon Isaacs declined to halt the application by Sumner Point Properties, owned by Bobby Little and his family, to commit fellow American, David Cummings, and his associate to prison for contempt of court.

Sumner Point is accusing Mr Cummings and Bryan Meyran of breaching an October 22, 2012, Supreme Court Order that prohibited them from interfering with two land parcels and associated properties on Rum Cay.

The duo were forbidden from clearing land/destroying trees on an 80-acre plot owned by Sumner Point, and also prohibited from blocking the roads or interfering with its marina and associated buildings.

Sumner Point, though, is alleging that Messrs Cummings and Meyran blocked access by leaving “a large number of tractors along the road” to its properties since November 2012 - a date one month after the Supreme Court Order was made.

And, since January 2015, Sumner Point is alleging that the duo - aided at certain stages by “a group of Rum Cay locals” - have carried out “extensive land clearing” on the properties subject to the court Order.

It claims that this culminated in the destruction of dockage, infrastructure and statues at the marina, plus the tearing down of the ‘Out of the Blue Restaurant’, ‘The Kalik House’ and four beach cottages.

This resulted in Sumner Point’s application to commit Messrs Cummings and Meyran to prison and/or a fine for contempt of court, over the alleged Order breach.

Justice Rhonda Bain rejected the duo’s attempts to have her hear their initial objection, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on the matter, on January 21, 2016.

“The nub of the objection was that the appellants were insulated from suit pursuant to section 18 of the Buildings Control Act,” Justice Isaacs wrote.

The Act prevents legal actions being brought, for loss or damage, against “any person acting under the authority of the Minister” provided they act “in good faith”.

“The appellants contended that they were acting under colour of authority of instructions issued by the Ministry of Works,” Justice Isaacs noted.

“Hence, the attempt by the respondent [Sumner Point] to commit the appellants was precluded by section 18.”

The Littles and Mr Cummings, who runs a pollution control company in New York state, have been feuding on Rum Cay for more than a decade, with demolished buildings central to the dispute between the two parties.

The minister responsible for the Ministry of Works is Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis, who is also the MP for Rum Cay.

Justice Isaacs’ ruling recorded that Justice Bain declined to hear Messrs Cummings and Meyran’s application to stay the committal proceedings, pending a determination of whether she had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Justice Isaacs suggested this was “ because it seems the date for the hearing had been made without reference to the learned judge.

“Still, she allowed the issue to be raised as a part of the appellants’ submissions in the committal proceedings. Notwithstanding this concession”, the duo then headed for the Court of Appeal.

“The appellants are concerned that in the absence of a stay they stand in peril of being found in contempt and punished therefore by fine or imprisonment or both,” Justice Isaacs said.

He rejected Sumner Point’s argument that Messrs Cummings and Meyran needed permission from the Supreme Court to bring the appeal.

But Justice Isaacs also found that their appeal would not be rendered irrelevant should Justice Bain decide in favour of Sumner Point’s committal action.

“I am mindful of the nature of the proceeding before Justice Bain, and the possibility she may make a finding adverse to the appellants,” he ruled.

“But I am also mindful that it is important for committal proceedings to be heard timeously. Efforts to derail the process, even by allegations of want of jurisdiction, should be strenuously resisted.”

Given that eight months had already been spent on the issue, Justice Isaacs ordered that the hearing continue “as determined” by Justice Bain.