The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

FIRE destroyed four residential units in Harbour Island when an unlicensed gas company owned and operated by North Eleuthera MP Rickey Mackey performed services there in June 2018, plaintiffs allege in court documents.

An affidavit by a former inspector at the Ministry of Works claims Mr Mackey’s company, Eleuthera Petroleum Limited, did not have the dealer’s or sub-dealer’s licence that is required to sell, store and convey liquified petroleum gas to the public, nor did his employees have the installer’s licence required to connect, disconnect or fill liquified containers.

Contravening the licensing requirements of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act makes a person liable on summary conviction to a $3,000 fine, 12 months imprisonment or both, according to the law.

Plaintiffs entered a $450,646.96 default judgement against Eleuthera Petroleum Ltd last year and had the Royal Bank of Canada account connected to the company frozen.

Eleuthera Petroleum is now seeking to strike out the judgement, with its lawyers arguing that COVID-19 prevented the company from submitting a timely defence in the case.

The first of two plaintiffs, Justin Higgs, owns four residential rental units on the second floor of a two-storey building on Bay Street, Harbour Island and operated Carl’s Laundromat in a rental unit on the first floor of the building.

He lived with his wife upstairs in an apartment above the laundry.

Mr Higgs contacted Eleuthera Petroleum––the only company on the island that provides the services he needed––around June 15, 2018 to have the propane tank that services his laundromat refilled.

The next day, an explosion occurred at the building complex. Mr Higgs claims he saw Ernie Mackey, an employee of the gas company, “walking to the front of the building, limping” that morning.

“When I got closer to him, his shirt dropped off and there was a burning scent on him,” he said. “I went to the northern side of the building and noticed flames coming from the gas tank going toward the boxing, which is two stories up.”

Freeman Hanna, now the principal of South West Consultancy Services, a company that inspects fire damage, left the Ministry of Works as an inspector and licensed explosive technician on March 16, 2019 after 30 years, according to his affidavit, which was filed on February 2, 2021.

“…I am aware that Eleuthera Petroleum Limited does not have a dealer’s or sub dealer’s licence issued under Section 4 of the Liquified Petroleum Act to sell, store and convey liquified petroleum gas to the public,” he said in his affidavit.

“I am also aware that Eleuthera Petroleum Limited does not have the required installer’s licence as described in Section 5 of the Act and regulations for any of its employees to connect, disconnect or fill liquified containers.”

Mr Hanna alleged that Mr Mackey approached him early last year to discuss the cause of the fire.

“I immediately reminded Mr Mackey that his company and his employees did not have the necessary licences required by the Liquid Petroleum Act to sell liquified petroleum during the period under review or at all,” he said.

“Mr Mackey asked me whether I believed that he had any defence to an action that was started against his company. I told him that based on the information I became aware of, it was highly unlikely because his employees were unskilled. However, an inspection was needed.

“I inspected the premises on March 20, 2020 at the request of the plaintiffs as I did not hear back from Mr Mackey. I concluded, based on my years of experience and expertise that during the filling process of the tank, the employees of Eleuthera Petroleum Limited did not monitor the filling of the tank carefully, which resulted in the tank being overfilled and the relief valve blowing off the excess gas. The excess gas leaked and was ignited. The ignited flame flashed back to the tank which was overfilled and resulted in the fire which caused damage to the premises.

“I further concluded that Eleuthera Petroleum Limited did not follow any of the basic standards set out in the regulations for the refilling of a bulk tank.”

According to a statement of claim filed last March, Mr Mackey arranged for a large garbage container to be placed at Mr Higgs’ laundry the day after the fire.

Mr Higgs alleges that when he met Mr Mackey and his spouse on July 7, 2018, Mr Mackey told him and his wife that Eleuthera Petroleum and its employees were responsible for the fire.

“Mrs Mackey suggested that it would be best that the defendant get the roof rebuilt at the earliest so we can get the businesses up and running and avoid more damage. Then the defendant would work on the apartments upstairs,” he alleged.

“Mr Mackey also asked if I had gotten anyone to give an estimate for the repairs. I told him that I had already asked someone but was still waiting for them to get back to me. I told him if he knew anyone that could provide the estimate, he can go ahead and contact them. Mr Mackey then contacted one Mr Mekal McDonald for a quote for the repair of the roof. Approximately one hour later, Mr McDonald went to my home to measure the building.

“Mr Mackey agreed that the defendant would cover the costs associated with the resolution of the building inclusive of labour and supplies. Before the conclusion of the meeting, Mr Mackey gave me a cheque for the sum of $10,000 as part payment for the repairs.”

Mr Higgs alleges that while Mr Mackey purchased some materials for the roof, he has not communicated with him since July 7, 2018 to discuss other materials and funds to complete the repairs.

“At all material times the defendant had accepted responsibility for the damage to the building,” he claims.

“At no time did he make any representation or commitment to us as our member of Parliament or our family member. It is my humble belief that after Mr Mackey realised the extent of the damage and the costs of repair, he decided to renege on the obligations agreed.”

Lawyers for the gas company deny that Mr Mackey suggested his company was in any way responsible for the fire.

“Contrary to the contention of the first plaintiff the defendant has advised and verily believes that Mr Mackey agreed to assist the plaintiff primarily as a consequence of his being a relative of Mr Mackey’s family and was in no way thereby acknowledging any liability for the plaintiff’s loss,” lawyers for the defendant wrote in their draft defence.

They also deny that the company was negligent in filling Mr Higgs’ tank, arguing that “the gas tank servicing the laundromat was recently relocated by the first plaintiff or someone under his direction and which was in all likelihood the cause of the fire.”

According to the statement of claim, Mr Higgs suffered “tremendous losses” because of the fire.

He allegedly not only spent $46,602.27 on clean up, material and labour, but he and his tenants were also displaced and had to seek alternative accommodation “at additional expenses”.

The statement said Mr Higgs received a monthly income of $1,650 from the residential units and, up to last March, suffered a loss of $31,350 and “continuing”.

The statement also said he suffered loss of income in or around $142k because of the fire.

In an affidavit filed on January 28, 2021, Alexander Christie, a partner of the firm McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes, urged the Supreme Court to strike out the Judgement in Default of Defence that was filed on March 31, 2020.

He said the proceedings began “at the time that the country was faced with the COVID pandemic which have impacted negatively on the conduct of legal proceedings in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.”

Emails where lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants discussed the case were exhibited in an attempt to show the plaintiffs were unreasonable in entering judgement when they did.

“I verily believe that the defendant does need have an arguable defence in that the evidence suggests that it was the negligence of the plaintiffs which was the cause of the accident and further even if the defendant was liable in negligence (which is denied) the sums claimed as compensation are grossly excessive,” Mr Christie wrote.

The draft defence does not rebut the allegation that Eleuthera Petroleum lacked the requisite licenses.

Mr Mackey declined to discuss the matter when contacted yesterday, noting the case is before the court.