The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed Peter Nygard’s application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council over their rejection of his appeal of a contempt conviction.

In February, the appellate panel of justices refused the fashion mogul’s application for leave to appeal the contempt conviction he received for breaching an injunction that banned him from publishing stolen emails from the environmental group Save The Bays.

He later sought to have their decision re-examined by the London-based Privy Council; however, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs, and Roy Jones yesterday refused his application after ruling his appeal did not raise any “point of law of general or public importance’’.

According to court documents, in February 2019 an injunction order was granted against Nygard, which banned him from interacting with “certain correspondence” in “any form or fashion,” which he was said to have obtained illegally. In November 2019, Nygard was found to be in contempt of the injunction order and was subsequently sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined $150,000, plus $5,000 a day if he failed to comply with the court’s judgment.

When Nygard had attempted to appeal the order in the Court of Appeal, the panel refused his application and affirmed the judge’s ruling after concluding the sentence imposed on him was “commensurate with the contempt proved”.

Just days after their ruling was released, Nygard tried to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Privy Council on the grounds that he was “entitled to appeal as of right” as he was “seeking to recover his property, i.e. the fine he was “wrongfully required to pay,” which was more than $4,000.

He further contended that even if he were not entitled “as of right,” he should be granted leave to appeal as his application raised points of law of general public importance.

Nonetheless, in their judgment delivered by Sir Michael Barnett, the panel noted that when exercising their discretion to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council, they considered “whether the applicant had an arguable case” and “whether the appeal involved a point of general and public importance”.

“The proposed appeal does not raise any point of law of general or public importance, Nygard was not in The Bahamas, but had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bahamian courts in the substantive proceedings,” Sir Michael said.

“Nygard’s presence outside the jurisdiction may affect the ability of the court to enforce the committal order, but does not affect the ability of the court to make the order. Whether the committal order should have been made or whether the order was too harsh in its terms having regard to the breach is a matter of discretion and does not involve a point of law of public importance.”

“In the circumstances,” said Sir Michael, “as the proposed appeal does not raise any point of law of general or public importance, we refuse the application for conditional leave. Of course, Nygard may apply directly to the Privy Council for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”