By RASHAD ROLLE
Tribune News Editor
rrolle@tribunemedia.net
A HUSBAND who accused a Supreme Court judge of bias after she ordered him to pay for appraisals of properties he says he does not own has lost his bid to have her removed from his long-running divorce case.
Justice CV Hope Strachan refused to step aside. She found that the man had repeatedly ignored court directions, failed to attend a hearing he was ordered to attend, and was given chance after chance to put his case. She also warned that recusal applications must not be used to secure a different judge or further delay.
“To recuse in circumstances where the established test is not met would risk undermining, rather than advancing, the proper administration of justice,” Justice Strachan said.
The couple, identified only by their initials, divorced in November 2016, five months after the wife began proceedings. The court has yet to decide how to divide their property. The wife revived her claim in November 2023, identifying the former matrimonial home and five other properties in New Providence and the Family Islands that she said were bought by, or conveyed to, the husband in his sole name.
The husband’s main complaint concerned an October 2024 order that the properties be appraised, with him paying the cost up front. He argued that the order placed a financial burden on him even though there were no title documents proving he owned the properties. Meanwhile, he said, his former wife had been collecting rental income while he alone paid the mortgages.
At a hearing in July 2025, his lawyer told the court that he “has never been the owner of the property and therefore will not comply”.
The husband did not allege actual bias or impropriety. He argued instead that the cumulative effect of the judge’s rulings would lead a fair-minded observer to conclude his case had not been treated impartially.
Justice Strachan rejected that argument. She said the October order did not decide who owned any of the properties and was only a case-management direction to obtain valuations. She noted that his own lawyer at the time had not objected to the appraisals and had accepted that he could pay the costs first. The wife’s share was reserved until the end of the case.
She said the wife’s sworn affidavit was evidence, and that the husband had not challenged it when he filed his own affidavit, late, in May 2024. He first claimed he did not own two of the properties in an affidavit filed the day before a March 2025 hearing, which he then failed to attend.
Instead of ignoring that claim, the judge said the court ordered him to file an affidavit by April 28, 2025, setting out which properties he did and did not own, with supporting conveyance documents. He did not do so. Shortly before the next hearing, he wrote to ask the judge to step aside.
She said the court had shown him leniency throughout. In April 2024, although the parties had agreed wasted costs of $2,500 against him, she ordered him to pay only $2,000 and deferred payment until the end of the case. After he missed the deadline for his written submissions on the recusal bid, he was given another chance, and they were eventually served in April this year.
The wife’s lawyers argued the application was without merit and had delayed the case. They also said they could not find in the transcript one remark the husband attributed to the judge.
Justice Strachan said nothing in her ruling decides ownership, valuation, rental income or how the assets will be divided. Those questions will be settled at the full hearing.
The husband was ordered to pay his former wife’s costs of the application.
Marylee Braynen-Symonette represented the wife. Lillith Smith-Mackey and Nicholette Burrows represented the husband.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.