The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

AN “iconic” Harbour Island horse riding business popular with visitors is locked in a furious legal battle with the Government and Pink Sands resort over the land where its facilities are located.

Court documents obtained by Tribune Business reveal allegations by Byron Bullard principal of

B&B Horseback Riding, that he is being “threatened with eviction” from property his business has purportedly occupied for 60 years “and destruction of his stables” if he fails to relocate.

However, his bid to bring a Judicial Review challenge against the Government has been rejected by Supreme Court justice, Carla Card-Stubbs, who in a March 8, 2024, ruling found that Mr Bullard and his attorney, Geoffrey Farquharson, had failed to identify any decision by a public body that merited her intervention.

Mr Bullard had listed 13 grounds for “relief” in his original February 10, 2023, application for permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings against the minister responsible for lands and surveys (the Prime Minister), including that the Government’s actions were breaching his constitutional rights and that it had “acted maliciously, corruptly, unlawfully, high handedly and oppressively” towards him.

His case is that the horse riding business, which he has owned and operated since the late 1980s, has occupied its present site “for more than 60 years” dating back to the 1950s when it was under other ownership. As a result, Mr Bullard is arguing that - through more than 36 years of “undisturbed possession” - he has met the 30-year legal minimum to be declared owner of the property.

Tribune Business, though, has obtained an approved September 2016 survey plan for the Pink Sands subdivision which seemingly shows that B&B Horseback Riding’s paddock, stables and other facilities are located on lot 17 in the south-eastern corner. The Pink Sands resort is understood to be claiming ownership of the very same land, and wants the horse riding business to move.

This newspaper yesterday sought to contact Kym Neilsen, Pink Sands’ general manager, for comment but, after explaining the nature of its inquiry, the call was either dropped or disconnected. His phone went straight to voice mail when called back and, although a message was left, it was not returned before press time last night.

One Briland source, familiar with the dispute but speaking on condition of anonymity, voiced disappointment that Pink Sands and Mr Bullard have not been able to reach a compromise and settle their differences amicably.

“It’s a battle. They can’t get along,” the source said. “It’s just a shame they cannot come up with some compromise. I think Pink Sands could find a sliver of land, down wind from its cottages, which is still close to the dry dock and near public beach access. I can’t believe they can’t come up with a compromise.

“They have four or five horses and take them out every day. They walk them down the beach and set up. They are a huge draw for the tourists. They love to ride bare back on the pink beach with the crystal clear blue water in the background.

“It’s an iconic thing, those horses on the beach. It’s a tourism thing. They’re good horses, well trained and they clean up after them. There’s enough land on the beach and they need to figure out a solution.”

Justice Card-Stubbs, detailing Mr Bullard’s evidence in the Judicial Review proceedings, said it “relays an antagonistic relationship with a hotel occupying adjacent land, and allegations are made of threats of eviction by the respondent (the Government), one such threat issued by way of a letter”.

It was this letter, dated December 29, 2022, that Mr Bullard alleged demonstrated the Government had intervened in the dispute on Pink Sands’ behalf and was the cause of his Judicial Review action. The B&B Horseback Riding principal, in an affidavit, alleged that Pink Sands had been “taken over by new operators” who had “recently built cottages remote from the hotel on the beach” next to his operation.

“They then insisted that I must vacate my business, or they would demolish my stables and seize my land,” Mr Bullard claimed, who said he was “contacted by the junior minster in the Prime Minister’s Office” in the middle of negotiating with Pink Sands over purchasing the property.

At the same time, “the hotel and its management renewed their threats to demolish my buildings and seize my land”, he added, resulting in Mr Bullard initiating separate legal action against the resort.

“Whereupon I received a letter from the respondents [sic] purporting to step into the shoes of the hotel and its management in order to attempt to seize my land and destroy my buildings,” Mr Bullard alleged against the Government.

“Accordingly, I am seeking Judicial Review of the actions of the respondent and an injunction restraining him (minister responsible for lands and surveys) from interfering with my land, buildings, or any right or any access or egress thereto pending the resolution of this matter.”

The Supreme Court verdict did not identify the “junior minister”, although the candidates would include former minister of state in the Prime Minister’s Office, Myles Laroda, and his replacement and previous parliamentary secretary, Leon Lundy.

However, when contacted by Tribune Business yesterday, Mr Bullard identified “Mr Fitzgerald” as “the main one telling me to leave”. That would appear to be Jerome Fitzgerald, former MP and Cabinet minister, who is now Prime Minister Philip Davis KC’s senior policy adviser.

While the “junior minister’s” December 29, 2022, letter formed the basis of Mr Bullard’s Judicial Review bid, he and his attorney argued “it was not essential” that it be produced to obtain permission to proceed and would instead be revealed during the later substantive hearing.

Yet the Attorney General’s Office, as the Government’s legal representative, argued that Mr Bullard should seek alternative legal remedies via land law. And, pointing out that Judicial Review actions were concerned with decisions made by government/ public bodies and officials, it argued that he and his attorney had failed to identify the relevant decision, who made it and when.

Justice Card-Stubbs agreed, finding: “The applicant claims to have a legitimate grievance about something gone amiss, or under threat of going amiss. However, what is not before this court is the decision complained of.......

“I also note that the applicant is asserting a claim to the possession of land and has filed suit elsewhere in that regard. Indeed, the first of the remedies sought in the notice of application is declaration of ownership of the land. It seems to me that if this is a title issue, then Judicial Review is inappropriate in the first instance.

“The Applicant is said to be taking steps to have ownership of the property addressed. If that is so, and if there is an alternative remedy, then that remedy ought to be pursued. Judicial Review is said to be a remedy of last resort. If indeed there is a threatened trespass, then that matter ought to be pursued by the applicant for a remedy in private law. If Judicial Review is to be constituted, it may well be that this application is premature.”

Mr Bullard told Tribune Business that B&B Horseback Riding is properly licensed, with vets from the US visiting every February to check on the horses’ health. He added that he had obtained the necessary permits, and gone through the required local government channels, to be able to construct the stables and paddock where the horses feed and get their hay during the day.

“People come from the charter planes just to ride in the water,” Mr Bullard said. “The tourists really love the horses. Pink Sands is making money off those horses, calling me every day, but yet I need to move from in front of them because they are claiming the whole area.”