The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A LYFORD Cay homeowner has been awarded more than $1m after a Supreme Court registrar found that an interior designer and his company failed to complete a renovation project, left the work highly defective and repeatedly made false claims about its progress.

Acting Assistant Registrar Adrienne Bellot ordered Antonio Matres and Antonio Matres LLC to pay John “Jack” Platts US$1,026,612.66 in special damages, US$2,000 in general damages, US$63,474.20 in interest and $6,000 in costs.

She also ordered the defendants to pay interest on US$1,074,062.66 at 6.25 percent until the judgment is satisfied.

The award followed a default judgment entered against the defendants on September 2, 2025. The defendants did not appear in the action or take part in the damages assessment, though the court said it was satisfied they had been properly served and notified.

According to the ruling, Mr Platts entered an agreement with the defendants in March 2024 for interior design services and furniture for his Lyford Cay home. The work was to be completed by June 30, 2024, for US$45,000.

In May 2024, the arrangement expanded when the defendants proposed managing construction and renovation work at the home. The parties then entered a construction agreement for US$454,500, with the project due to be completed by September 2024.

But the court said the defendants repeatedly misrepresented the progress of the work while Mr Platts was off-island and repeatedly requested more money. By the end of 2024, Platts had paid them more than US$1m.

Neither the design agreement nor the construction agreement was completed. The court said the work was highly defective, forcing Mr Platts to hire emergency labour to address hazardous conditions and engage a new contractor to complete the project.

Ms Bellot accepted Mr Platts’ evidence, noting that it was unchallenged.

“I am convinced by the evidence that the defendants’ work was effectively of no value and even required remediation before the desired work could begin,” she said.

Mr Platts claimed US$1,102,062.66 in special damages for payments connected to the project, including construction costs, doors and windows, furniture, customs duties, shipping, unapproved construction extras, unexplained charges, duplicated site visit charges and emergency labour.

Ms Bellot awarded most of that sum, but rejected a US$30,000 claim for delays affecting other contractors, finding that it was an estimated and unquantified amount that could not be treated as special damages.

She also rejected a separate US$3,972,681.98 claim for remediation and completion by a new contractor because it had not been specifically pleaded in the statement of claim.

Mr Platts also sought general damages for loss of use, inconvenience and distress, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages.

The court accepted that the defendants’ breach caused Mr Platts discomfort and inconvenience. Mr Bellot noted that his home was left defective and uninhabitable for several months, depriving him of the use and enjoyment of the property and leaving him to endure the 2024 holiday season with the home in disrepair.

However, she awarded only BSD$2,000 for inconvenience and discomfort, citing authorities that damages of that kind in contract cases should be modest.

Ms Bellot refused to award exemplary damages, finding that the case did not meet the legal test for punitive damages. She also declined to award aggravated damages, finding that the damages already awarded adequately compensated Platts for his distress.

Mr Platts’ lawyer, Jacy Whittaker, asked the court to award costs on an indemnity basis, citing the defendants’ deceit, their refusal to participate in the proceedings and the burden placed on Mr Platts to trace funds sent overseas.

Ms Bellot rejected that request, saying the defendants’ conduct was not so exceptional as to justify indemnity costs. She said the defendants had exercised their right not to participate and that Platts still had to prove his damages.

She awarded $6,000 in costs for the assessment stage, noting that the matter was uncontested and heard on written submissions.