The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Two leading attorneys are locked in a furious battle over $83,000 in taxed legal costs stemming from court cases involving Sir Jack Hayward’s late Bahamian butler.

Sir Ian Winder, in a February 16, 2024, verdict dismissed both Maurice Glinton KC’s bid for summary judgment and Robert Adams KC counter-attack in seeking to have the claim struck-out or stayed by finding that the matter raised serious issues that need to be determined at a full trial.

However, the Chief Justice seemed to signal that his sympathies lay with Mr Adams, now at the Delaney Partners law firm. For he promised that the Supreme Court would “mark its disapproval in its reasons” should it find that the allegations made by Mr Glinton are “scurrilous” as his adversary is alleging.

And Sir Ian also hinted that the case brought by Freeport-based Mr Glinton and his firm, Maurice Glinton & Company, is not the strongest, writing: “Notwithstanding the eloquence of Mr Glinton’s submissions, my broad assessment of the merits is that Maurice Glinton & Company may well not be the successful party.”

The dispute involves legal costs awarded to Julius Trevor Bethel, who served as the late Sir Jack’s personal assistant and manager of his Freeport residences, in two separate court battles. The first involved his alleged exclusion from the Hayward family trust, The Sir Jack Hayward 1993 Discretionary Settlement, while the second included the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and its Port Group Ltd affiliate among the defendants.

Mr Glinton and his firm represented Mr Bethel, who passed away from “undetermined causes” on January 17, 2020, in both legal actions. Mr Adams represented several members of Sir Jack’s estate, namely Patricia Bloom and her daughter, Amy, in the trust case, and also acted for the Blooms, the GBPA, Port Group and both entities’ co-chair, Sarah St George.

Mr Bethel, after succeeding with actions at both the Court of Appeal and Privy Council levels in 2018-2019, was awarded his legal costs of $18,873 and $64,341 for the two respective actions. Both awards were certified and taxed.

Three days before Sir Jack’s late butler passed, Mr Glinton initiated moves to collect on both cost awards from Mr Adams’ clients. In legal filings, he alleged that he had secured a lien on both awards as legal fees were due and owing to him from Mr Bethel.

However, subsequent to Mr Bethel’s passing, Mr Adams and his clients - including the GBPA, Port Group Ltd and Ms St George - became concerned that paying the legal costs directly to Mr Glinton could expose them to liability by triggering legal action from the former butler’s estate.

To overcome these difficulties, Mr Adams and Delaney Partners sought to protect the former’s clients by negotiating a Deed of Release with Mr Glinton and his firm to ensure they would incur no liability exposure by paying the legal costs awarded directly to Mr Bethel’s attorney.

Karla McIntosh, the GBPA’s in-house attorney, alleged in an affidavit: “After much consideration, [the GBPA, Port Group Ltd and Sarah St George] instructed their counsel to pay over to [Maurice Glinton & Company] the sum of $83,014 representing the costs taxed in favour of Julius Trevor Bethel in exchange for a Deed of Release executed by [Mr Glinton] and [Maurice Glinton & Company].

“There were, however, concerns as to whether [Mr Glinton] and [Maurice Glinton & Company] continued to possess the requisite legal authority to provide [the GBPA, Port Group Ltd and St George] a legally valid and effective release and receipt in light of the fact their client, Julius Trevor Bethel, had died.

“There were also concerns that, without a legally valid and effective release and receipt being issued on behalf of Julius Trevor Bethel, his estate might also make a claim against [the GBPA, Port Group and St George] for the sums due and payable by virtue of the certificates of taxation.”

The two sides sought to negotiate the terms of the Deed of Release, but Mr Glinton, on February 2, 2020, reacted negatively to this and hinted that he would resort to legal action to enforce his claim. This was despite Mr Adams replying that Mr Glinton could make the changes he wanted “and we will consider the same”.

Mr Glinton is effectively alleging that Mr Adams, via the Deed of Release, is interfering with his lien rights and ability to collect on due legal fees owed by his late client. The dispute has spawned multiple other court actions, including a claim by Mr Glinton against Mr Bethel’s mother, Daisy, as administratix of his estate, that the legal costs are subject to his lien and not part of her son’s estate.

Ms St George, the GBPA and Port Group have also initiated legal action asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the funds should be paid to the late Mr Bethel’s estate or Maurice Glinton & Company. Meanwhile, Tynes & Tynes, attorneys for Mr Bethel’s mother, have requested that the legal costs and interest accrued on them be paid to the estate and not Mr Glinton.

The latter, in what Sir Ian described as an “exceptionally elaborate” claim, alleged that Mr Adams had engaged in a purported conspiracy with others to prevent himself and his firm from recovering their legal costs, thereby “causing financial injury and damaging Mr Glinton’s creditworthiness and character”.

Mr Adams, though, demanded that the action be thrown out on the basis that it was “scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and/or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court and may prejudice, embarrass or delay” a fair trial or the matter being stayed.

Mr Glinton and his law firm, in their submissions, argued that Mr Adams and Graham, Thompson & Company, which was also named as a defendant and the law firm where Mr Adams practiced when the case in question were heard, had imposed the draft Deed of Release as a condition of payment. He added that his lien security overrode all and any other interests in the fees.

Dawson Malone, the Callenders & Co attorney representing Mr Adams, slammed Mr Glinton’s claim as “patently unsustainable and misconceived. It is bound to fail in its entirety”. He argued that there was no evidence of any interference with Mr Glinton’s interest in the taxed costs, and the draft Deed of Release was to facilitate payment and not stop it.

Graham, Thompson & Company also described the claim by Mr Glinton and his firm as “doomed to failure”. It added that the lien rights claimed by the latter did not give them enforcement rights against the other side or their attorneys.

Sir Ian, denying all applications by both sides, disagreed with Mr Adams’ arguments that the case be paused. “From Maurice Glinton & Company’s perspective, Mr Glinton KC and his firm have been ‘out of pocket’ for over three years,” he wrote.

“From the defendants’ perspective, this action continues to hang over their heads with their professional reputations implicated.... Moreover, as a matter of policy, allegations of misconduct made against officers of the court should be investigated with minimum delay.”

As for the summary judgment attempt, Sir Ian ruled: “I am unable to agree with Mr Glinton that Maurice Glinton & Company’s claim is straightforward enough or meritorious enough on its face to warrant summary judgment. Despite Mr Glinton’s best efforts, I am of the opinion that there are issues that ought to be decided at trial....

“Free from authority, it is far from obvious that Mr Adams acted outside of the possible courses of action reasonably competent members of the profession might have chosen to take in advising his clients to secure a release before making payment of the taxed costs to Maurice Glinton & Company or Mr Glinton. No administrator had been appointed in respect of Julius Trevor Bethel.”

Sir Ian, while finding that the draft Deed of Release “could not prejudice” the rights of Mr Glinton and his law firm, also dismissed Mr Adams’ strike-out bid on the basis that he “cannot be certain on the material before me, and based on the argument that I have heard, that the action is bound to fail”.

Describing Mr Adams’ move as “a strike at the jugular”, the Chief Justice added: “I recognise that this may be an unsatisfactory outcome for Mr Adams, who described the allegations made against him as ‘scurrilous’, but ultimately this claim is not one to which the court should shut its doors.

“Mr Adams may be assured that in the event that the claim is found to be meritless, given the nature of some of the allegations made, this court will mark its disapproval in its reasons.”