He may be a Cabinet Minister, but that hasn't kept Foreign Minister Wilfred Elrington out of the Courts. For some time now, he's been tangled in a lawsuit with the directors of Progresso Heights Limited.
These are his former business partners, and back when he was a practicing attorney, the Corozal based real estate company retained his law firm. Elrington later became a minority shareholder in the company.
Best information indicates that the business relationship between the two went completely sour in 2009. That's when they parted ways due to a bitter commercial dispute, and immediately after that, Progresso Heights sued him in the Supreme Court. They alleged that he was to act as their attorney in the processing of 16 land titles at the Lands Department. The problem is that the company never got those land certificates, which had a combined value of several hundred thousand dollars.
Quite surprisingly, all the paperwork was carried out for these transactions, and the directors of Progresso Heights claimed that they deposited money into Elrington's account so that he could cover the cost. But, Elrington insisted in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Caribbean Court of Justice, that he never did them, and he had no idea if these documents were delivered to his law firm in the first place.
That case was resolved by the CCJ, who ordered Elrington to produce them, the court carried out a procedure to have the Lands Department provide new copies of these titles to Progresso Heights.
That should have been the end of the fight between Elrington and the principals of Progresso Heights, but today, they ended up in the Court of Appeal. This time Elrington is suing them.
That appeal centers around a decision from Justice Shona Griffith to dismiss Elrington's application for an inspector to go into Progresso Heights. He wants this inspector to review the company's history to ensure that they were carrying out business in a proper and responsible manner.
But, before Justice Griffith presided over that case, it went before the former judge, Justice Oswell Legall. The two sides agreed before that judge that an inspector would be appointed. The problem is that the consent order was never drafted and signed.
So, there are now 2 Supreme Court decisions on the same dispute: one that says that a consent order, which never materialized, would have allowed the inspector to be appointed, and the other which says that there will be no inspector.
That's the issue that the panel of judges from the Court of Appeal tackled today, when Elrington's attorney, Fred Lumor, tried to convince them to set aside Justice Griffith's decision. Priscilla Banner, who is representing Progresso Heights Limited, tried to convince them to deny Elrington's appeal.
After the 2 hour court hearing, we got a chance to speak with Elrington about his reasons for carrying on this fight with Progresso Heights, and here's what he had to say:
Hon. Wilfred Elrington - Appellant
"It was really an application to the court for the court to appoint an inspector to got and inspect the affairs of the company. And that really had a peculiar history because when it first came up for hearing before Mr Justice Legall. It was the assumption of all of us, really that it was agreed that that matter was settled by consent, and we would file an order in the court articulating that consent, and indicating who the inspector would be. That was how it was left. In a strange way, which I still can't explain, maybe a year or 2 later, the same case was set down for hearing, and it was argued, without any objection being made, but..."
Reporter
"In front of which judge, sir?"
Hon. Wilfred Elrington
"A new judge, because the old judge had left, and a new judge came, and the matter was set before her. I don't know how it came before her. And, I imagine, given the pressure of time, I was involved in it myself, and given the impression of the pressure of time, or whatever it is, we went ahead with the hearing without making any objection. But, I just don't understand how it happened."
"So, the dilemma before the court now is that there are 2 courts that deal with it. So, the question is, which one's judgment is the valid one. I think that is the argument that was being raised today."
"It's a question of law, really a - essentially a legal point is, which is the valid decision: the consent judgment, or this judgment of the last judge who dealt with it. So, that is what is being debated before the court at this point in time."
Reporter
"What purpose does this serve for you? What do you gain by bringing this particular appeal?"
Hon. Wilfred Elrington
"Companies are peculiar organizations. Companies are owned by the shareholders, and the law is very clear as to how companies are to be operated."
"Many times, companies operate without any of these laws, rules and regulations being observed, and that can create great hardship for the investors, the shareholders, because if there is no proper accounting, and no proper transparency and the like, a lot of harm can come about. So, my particular interest in this case is to have an independent inspector go in to verify that in fact things are being done properly. This was a company that generated in a short while as much as 11-12 million dollars. [It's] a lot of money involved, and there has been no proper accounting."
Reporter
"Can you assure us that your claim here wasn't specifically as a power move against Progresso Heights because they were suing you for these titles they say you had, and didn't hand over to them?"
Hon. Wilfred Elrington
"Actually, that was the first case that was initiated. It was in consequence of my initiating that action, that the other action [was] brought. So, it has nothing to do with that."
The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment to a date to be announced.
Email
Print