The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

AN outspoken attorney yesterday railed against Canadian fashion-mogul Peter Nygard’s notable absence for a Supreme Court hearing, accusing the Lyford Cay resident of “playing cat and mouse” with the court and treating the institution as his own personal “convenience”.

Fred Smith, QC, lead counsel for Save The Bays (STB), charged Justice Rhonda Bain should not “countenance” Mr Nygard’s absence over his own recusal application, as he said the Supreme Court is not a “see-saw” that Mr Nygard can merely “pivot” on when he sees fit.

Mr Smith further noted that all of the other matters connected to and/or from which Mr Nygard’s latest recusal application emanates have been put in “abeyance” as a result of his legal challenges.

Mr Nygard’s lead attorney, Damian Gomez, QC, told the court that between yesterday and today, he would have “formal” evidence as to why his client was not present. Nonetheless, Justice Bain adjourned the matter to today, following an application for adjournment by Mr Gomez.

However, she said the order for Mr Nygard’s appearance still stands.

Mr Smith’s and Mr Gomez’s submissions came during a hearing before Justice Bain over Mr Nygard’s second recusal application against Justice Bain, which was launched in March. His first application for her recusal, which ultimately failed, was filed in 2015.

Both recusal applications stem from Mr Nygard’s battle with STB over allegations that the construction/development activities at his Lyford Cay home have led to a substantial growth of the property.

The group claims Mr Nygard 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 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 16, 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, six months later, affirmed Justice Bain’s rejection of the application in an appeal of the decision by the Lyford Cay resident.

In January, attorneys for former Prime Minister Perry Christie filed a motion to have Justice Bain recuse herself from these cases, and from a fourth judicial review brought by 103 of Mr Nygard’s Lyford Cay neighbours on the basis that she was set to reach the legal age for retirement by April.

Mr Christie, in his former capacity as minister for Crown land, appeared with several other senior officials and Mr Nygard as a respondent in three judicial review cases brought by STB to challenge the environmentally destructive construction work that was allowed to take place at Nygard Cay for the past three decades.

On February 7, Justice Bain ruled that Mr Christie’s application had “no merit” and reminded him of the independence of the judiciary, stressing that the chief justice’s role in deciding which judge hears a given case cannot be “usurped by the prime minister”.

In March, Mr Gomez had alerted Justice Bain to the filing of a notice of motion for recusal subsequent to a letter sent to the court a week before asking herself to recuse herself from the legal proceedings before her. However, she said that the latest recusal bid would not be heard or considered until a formal application is lodged.