The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A BAHAMIAN attorney’s bid to escape paying legal costs over his failed bid to block the $11.9m sale of downtown Nassau’s Union Wharf property over an alleged debt owed by Peter Nygard has been rejected by the Court of Appeal.

Carlton Martin had argued there were “special circumstances” requiring that no costs Order be made against him, citing four reasons including his assertion “that he still has a claim to pursue” before the Supreme Court concerning the “alleged charge” he holds over the Union Wharf property.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected all arguments and ordered him to cover all legal costs incurred by Galaxy Group, the entity that sold Union Wharf to another corporate vehicle, Buena Vista Properties Nassau, for $11.9m on January 31, 2025. The property is now home to Royal Caribbean and Titan Hospitality, the latter of which is providing food for the cruise line’s Paradise Island Royal Beach Club.

Mr Martin had unsuccessfully sought an injunction to block the Union Wharf sale on the basis that it was owned by disgraced and jailed Canadian fashion tycoon, Peter Nygard, who he alleged owed him $3.185m in unpaid legal fees.

But Justice Simone Fitzcharles, in an October 8, 2024, verdict ruled that she would “not impede the sale” of a property whose redevelopment could play a vital role in Bay Street’s revival.

Rather than grant the sale-barring injunction that Mr Martin was seeking, Justice Fitzcharles ordered that the deal proceed on the condition that the attorneys for Galaxy Group, Gail Lockhart-Charles & Company, retain from the sales proceeds the sum claimed by Mr Martin in case he won his case.

She noted that blocking, or delaying, Union Wharf’s acquisition by Buena Vista Properties could result in its seizure by the Department of Inland Revenue and subsequent auctioning-off to cover unpaid real property tax debts owed to the Public Treasury.

The Court of Appeal, in its September 1, 2026, costs ruling, said: “The appellant [Mr Martin] had obtained a default judgment against Peter Nygard for the sum of $2.856m plus interest. The appellant claims that Nygard is the beneficial owner of a property known as Union Wharf and that, as a judgment creditor, he has an equitable charge on the Union Wharf property.

“Galaxy Group holds the legal title to Union Wharf and was in the process of selling Union Wharf. The appellant applied for an injunction to stop the sale of Union Wharf to preserve its alleged charge over Union Wharf.”

Mr Martin’s attempt to overturn Justice Fitzcharles’ initial verdict was ultimately rejected in June 2026 by the Court of Appeal. The only prior change it had made to her ruling was to increase the sum retained by Gail Lockhart-Charles & Company to $3.5m.

Responding to Mr Martin’s arguments against a costs Order being imposed against him in favour of Galaxy Group, the Court of Appeal branded his claim as “speculative”. It added: “It is rendered even more nebulous by the fact that Nygard’s unrelated and independent claim to the beneficial ownership of Union Wharf has been dismissed, and Nygard himself is in prison in Canada.

“On the other hand, Galaxy Group, as owner of Union Wharf, has sold the property. Secondly, the appellant in this matter does not claim the beneficial ownership of Union Wharf but only seeks to assert a charge over it to satisfy his judgment debt. This ‘charge’ has been protected by the orders reserving part of the proceeds of the sale of Union Wharf since October 2024.

“Therefore, even if the appellant's claim succeeds, he would have some protection against his putative loss. On the other hand, if his claim fails, Galaxy would have suffered a loss of a sale and may have been unable to recoup any losses that would have occurred after a possible forced sale by the Revenue authorities,” the Court of Appeal added.

“In fact, as both the trial judge and this court have held, the balance of convenience favoured the refusal of the injunction and hence the dismissal of this appeal. In these circumstances, there is no reason why the speculative claim of the appellant should be a special circumstance against the usual order for costs to follow the event.”

Union Wharf was sold to Galaxy Group by CIBC Caribbean (Bahamas) on April 17, 2015. Galaxy Group has also disputed that Mr Nygard has any beneficial ownership interest in it.

Justice Fitzcharles, in her original October 8, 2024, ruling as the “duty” judge that weekend, said: “Galaxy states that it is the owner of the property and the Nygard Foundation is the 100 percent owner of the shares of Galaxy Group Ltd. If Galaxy Group Ltd does not sell the property, the Department of Inland Revenue will do so by public auction in short course.”

With Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson having previously approved Union Wharf’s sale after Mr Nygard failed to “follow through” with his own rival ownership claim, Justice Fitzcharles added that Galaxy Group “wishes to sell the same post-haste as the sale will be for substantially more than can be fetched in a public auction by the Department of Inland Revenue.

“The projected purchase price for the sale of the property to Buena Vista Properties is $11.9m. Mr Martin has a judgment against Peter Nygard in the amount of $2.856m plus interest. As at May 27, 2024, the amount due to Mr Martin with interest was $3.185m. Mr Martin claims that Mr Nygard is the beneficial owner of the property ,” Justice Fitzcharles wrote and, as a result, he has an “equitable interest” in it.

“He states that Galaxy Group has denied Mr Nygard’s beneficial ownership of the property and has therefore refused to recognise his charge on the property,” she added. “Mr Martin’s position is that the sale ought to be stopped until he is able to prove that Mr Nygard owns the property so that he may then appoint a receiver and take control of any sale of the property in order to realise assets to satisfy the debt due to him.”

Justice Fitzcharles said that granting Mr Martin his injunction could result in the Buena Vista Properties deal being scuppered, and “a substantial purchase price from a willing and able buyer” being lost. She added that the Department of Inland Revenue could also sell Union Wharf being sold for a much lower price to recover past due taxes, while Mr Martin’s claim that $11.9m was “an undervalue” is not supported.

She thus ruled that $3.185m be set aside from the sales proceeds to cover Mr Martin’s claim. And the latter was ordered to “give an undertaking in damages to compensate” Galaxy Group should he lose his Nygard ownership claim. The judge also restrained the Department of Inland Revenue from seizing and selling-off the property to allow the sale to Buena Vista Properties to proceed.