The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

CANADIAN fashion designer Peter Nygard intends to subpoena Prime Minister Perry Christie to give evidence in his committal proceedings before the Supreme Court, a move that was described by opposing counsel as being an attempt to turn the case into “a political circus.”

The subpoena announcement was made by Elliot Lockhart, QC, one of two lawyers for Mr Nygard who is facing committal for allegedly breaching an order during an ongoing judicial review being done to determine whether the fashion designer had illegally increased the size of his property.

Mr Nygard was present in the Ansbacher House courtroom when the request was made.

Mr Lockhart and Damian Gomez, QC, had appeared before Justice Rhonda Bain last Friday to convince the judge to allow Mr Nygard’s motion that former and present Directors of Physical Planning Michael Major and Charles Zonicle be subpoenaed, as well as hedge fund billionaire Louis Bacon, who is Mr Nygard’s neighbour, to give evidence at the end of Save The Bay’s (STB) case.

Dawson Malone, who responded for STB’s, objected to the request on the basis that the court had given Mr Nygard a number of opportunities that were ignored.

Justice Bain, yesterday, arrived at a similar conclusion when she dismissed the applications.

“As the extent application is a claim of contempt, and the fifth respondent (Peter Nygard) has to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt, the fifth respondent should be given the opportunity to prove his case,” the judge said.

“The court has made every effort to accommodate the fifth respondent to put forward his defence. There have been three orders for directions. The court cannot continue to allow the fifth respondent to disobey the orders of the court with impunity. Continued disobedience of orders of the court would leave the court impotent,” she added.

Justice Bain referred to the 2006 Supreme Court decision of Campbell v Alexiou and Others where Justice (Dame) Anita Allen said that the “effective administration of justice is dependent, in part, upon the enforcement of its orders.”

Justice Bain further echoed the sentiments of Dame Anita concerning the court’s “obligation to protect the public interest and ensure that the court’s orders can be enforced and to prevent interference with the due administration of justice.”

“The court must ensure that the orders of the court are complied with. The court cannot allow the fifth respondent, by his non-compliance, to further delay the continuation of the contempt motion,” the judge ruled.

The motion was formally dismissed.

Before the ruling was given by Justice Bain on the application yesterday, Mr Lockhart made a similar application for another potential witness in his client’s defence.

“I formally apply for leave to issue a subpoena against the prime minister as minister responsible for Crown land in this country,” Mr Lockhart said.

Mr Lockhart then said that the court should reconsider whether Mr Nygard ought to be cross-examined for the proceedings given that the affidavit being relied upon came more than a year before the alleged contempt occurred.

Fred Smith, lead counsel for STB, took issue with the latest requests, stressing that the applications were only a further attempt to derail the continuation of committal proceedings.

“If he has an application to make, he should file and serve it,” Mr Smith said.

“He’s foreshadowing an application to be formally filed,” Justice Bain suggested.

Mr Lockhart said the latter was correct. He stressed that the affidavit being relied upon was filed in 2013 and the alleged contempt occurred in 2014.

“He ought not to be allowed to be cross-examined,” the lawyer said.

Mr Smith, again, objected, noting that Mr Lockhart himself “had consented for Mr Nygard to be cross-examined and he didn’t appeal the decision.”

“We are not here to engage in surprise tactical moves on this matter. Were it not for the hurricane, we’d be proceeding with the committal trial,” Mr Smith added.

Speaking of the application to subpoena the prime minster, Mr Smith also objected.

“It’s inappropriate for him to turn this into a political circus,” he said.

“Why sue him and now trying to shut that door then?” Mr Lockhart asked.

Wayne Munroe, QC, who now appears for the Crown in the judicial review with Loren Klein, Darcell Smith-Williams and Akeyra Saunders, said he wished to be heard on the latest application proposed by Mr Nygard.

The court will hear submissions on that application on October 19 while the committal proceedings have been delayed until December 16 due to Hurricane Matthew.

STB’s 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 his property’s size, 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.

That comes against the backdrop of Justice Bain’s ruling in 2013 that until the conclusion of judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of the construction of a groyne and the dredging of the seabed off Nygard Cay, neither activity could continue.

However, since then, STB has submitted photographic evidence in court alleging that the opposite has happened.

Gia Moxey and Khrisna Higgins also appeared for Mr Nygard in yesterday’s hearing.

Romauld Ferreira, Crispin Hall and Adrian Gibson appeared with Mr Smith and Mr Malone.