Sorry. I just took a glance at the case. I was trying to summarize from off of the top of my head and I said something that was incorrect in my summary.

Barrack construction actually obtained an order allowing it to sell goods and chattels owned by NHC. NHC asked the courts to stop Barrack Construction from exercising that right until there was at least an attempt to sell the the property which was the subject of the charging order (such a sale would have satisfied the debt owed).

@ ac
Barrack has no obligation to settle for less than the debt owed. There is no case if they are foolish enough to actually try to argue that in court.

@ac

I don’t think NHC is challenging Al Barrack’s refusal of a settlement in court (at least I haven’t read anything that suggests that).

The only Appeal I know about it one by Barrack Construction against a decision by the High Court not to grant a charging order over the property located at Country Road.

Also, as I explained earlier, NHC made an application in the high court to stop Barrack Construction from exercising its right to seize and sell chattels and goods belonging to NHC until it (Barrack Construction) first exercised its rights under the Charging order that it had already obtained.

To get a better idea what is going one (or at least what I understand to be going on) consider the following analogous situation (you know how much I like hypothetical scenarios):

David sues Scout for $1,000 and the court rules in his favour. However, weeks after David has won his court case, he still hasn’t been paid and interest is running. He decides to go back to court to enforce the judgment entered in his favour.
There are many ways to enforce his judgment. He can obtain an attachment of debt order, an order for seizure and sale of goods, a charging order (the list goes on and on). However, after considering his options, David chooses to apply for a charging order over Scout’s house in Millenium Heights.
The house is worth $4,000 and it does not matter if David sells it at market value or forced sale value, the proceeds of sale will (without a shadow of a doubt) satisfy the debt owed.
Notwithstanding the fact that he has obtained this order David goes back to court and obtains an new enforcement order which allows him to seize and sell Scout’s car, truck, jewellery, Laptop computer, I-pod and priceless works of art. All of these items are worth $500.00.
Even if David sells all of these items, the debt would not be satisfied and interest would still accrue at $500.00 per year. Worse still, it may take years before he can sell every single one of those items. By that time the interest will have accrued significantly.
If David successfully sells the house the debt would be extinguished immediately and there would be no need to sell those other items. Also, the sale of the house would be a one time affair after which there would be no need to worry about accruing interest.
Therefore Scout applies to the court for an order to stop David from selling his jewellery, car and other belongings until an attempt is made to sell the Millennium heights property.

A similar situation is what is happening with Barrack Construction v NHC.

One ‘rule’ that we should remember, is that for every action, there is also an opposite reaction.

All that is being done to Barack, by drawing out this issue, is creating a karma that the Government will have to repay, tenfold.

Which among us would mind not being paid after working on a project for a customer?

Which one of us would not mind seeing said customer for example, build another house using another contractor, not yet having paid for our work (extension at Sherbourne).

No, quite simple, this is plain wrong.

And it is telling that ‘educated’ persons in Parliament do not understand the laws of karma and the universal laws of nature.

The payment will be more than just principal and interest.

It is how nature is made.

Doubt me?

We will see.

All I will say is that all the meddling in Middle East affairs for the past fifty years is now bearing fruit.

Sometimes the fruit is sour.

@maat | March 4, 2011 at 12:23 AM |
“…With Al Barack, the ministers in charge at the time of the problem should be held responsible and liable to pay this man his dues”

isn’t the very ministers who r now in opposition not partners with Al Barack? when Al barack gets his money, won’t they too be getting their cut?…i hope he DOESN’T get one cent of my money…thieves

By the way did anyone listen to former Attorney General, retired judge and a host of other titles being cut by VOB yesterday?

Sometimes one has to wonder.

He was about to say that the Bar is a politically fractured body, if we are to judge by the context of the conversation.

Moderator Dennis Johnson seemed surprise when he was told by the provocative ‘anti-american’ that Sir Fred was cut.

You know, most members of the Bar are reputable, honest people of integrity. Unfortunately, as in any barrel of apples, there are a few rotten ones and it is these that get reported on.

Given that, the decision of the Bar comes as no surprise to me at all. The young lawyers who still have their dreams and aspirations of a proper justice system are likely the ones who welcomed the change in the Act. It is they who want to see JUSTICE work properly. It is they who are outside of the old-boy network. And so it should be – they are the future.

Having said that, I continue to assert that, since Marston Gibson has held a practice certificate in Barbados for well over 20 years and has been a law lecturer at the UWI and has worked in a common law country, he qualifies to be CJ without the law being changed. On the other side of the coin, suppose Attorney General Holder of the United States or someone like him, was offered the job of CJ, it seems inconceivable that such an appointment could be blocked simply because he has not practiced in a Commonwealth jurisdiction for 15 years. Clearly the law needs to be changed, but not, I submit, to accommodate Marston Gibson, who already qualifies and for whom I see no impediment of any kind.

Once Mr Gibson is confirmed coupled with Andrew Pilgrim heading the Bar, I shall look forward to forward-thinking changes in the justice system that will place Barbados once more in the position of being a world leader in the administration and administering of justice. I hope that justice will also be made more accessible to the man in the street and more cost-effective.

It is an enormous job, but one for which the right people are (or soon will be) in place. Then we will all be watching carefully to see what progress is made. I, for one, believe that the progress will be swifter than anyone imagines. It is going to be very interesting and possibly even very exciting.

David / Amused;

The spin by the Bar association, and one which I think very few would disagree with, is that the amendment of itself, is a useful one and improves the current situation re. the appointment of a Chief Justice or Judge in Barbados. They are staying clear of the propriety or otherwise of the timing of the amendment. That is a very sensible position and one which says volumes about Mr. Pilgrim.

I wish Mr. Gibson well. Perhaps in 2 years time we should review the progress that will be made in revamping the Justice system here. The decision by the Bar Association is a small step in the right direction.

Well there we have it. Carson doesn’t believe in justice in timely manner.

Has parliament discussed the change yet ? Didn’t follow it this morning. Right now their discussing title deeds legislations.

CCC
You are making a mockery of the Supreme Courts in Barbados, a judgement was handed down, an appeal made and the government losed, there is only one other placeto go and that is the CCJ and they did not use that option. What seems to surface is that the Government seems to think that they are above the highest court in the land, in the mean time the interest is mounting. Whether Barrack dies or not the money is still due to his estate and has to be paid. What is happening is that Barbados (not the BLP or the DLP) is looking really bad internationally and it can have a negative effect when we want to borrow money in the future.

We listened to some of the debate yesterday in parliament and it certainly appeared that Denis Kellman spoke in the capacity as Minister of Drainage.

you see what i tell you. here it is that people trying to seriously analyse a very important issue which could have some impact on the integrity of jurisprudence in barbados and carson c. cadogan can only inject some political diatribe into the equation. i hope whenh the bubble in the dlp ex[plodes, he is equally willing to comment without bias.i wonder why he has not commmented on the dlp’s election retreat with the leader in absentia.

@The Scout

Your position is contradictory. In essence you have implied that the judiciary as presently constituted is bias.

David
You can call it what you like, the way I see it this new C.J has a tough job at hand, if he goes with the government, perceptions would be that that is what he/she was brought here to do. To go against the government would be seen as a slap in the DLP’s face. My position is not contradictory, in essence it means that the new C.J, if he/she reverses the Supreme Courts decision is a creature of the present government

@david
it does seem he is still minister until stuart says otherwise.

Did any discussion of the amendment happen ? I didn’t follow the whole day but i know most of it was taken up by title deed , the Clearwater guarantee , followed by various bill to implement tax measure spoken too in budget and subsequent.

@Scout
At the current stage of the case the CJ cannot interfere unless he rules there where errors in make the july 2008 judgement that upheld the arbitration ( he may only do so if gross negligence is observed) . To say such now has occurred will tarnish his reputation and his impartiality so I would hope he does no such thing.

I agree with Anonlegal. His information is the same as mine.

So was the bill discussed or not ? Still haven’t seen anyone answer to that.

It seem the order paper for monday has the bill to be read a second time with notice being given for the bill in gazette for monday with no date for the first reading. I guess if they push they might get it in before before end of month.

My take is that he seems to be very worthy candidate for chief justice and that I hope after all this he can truly reform the justice system. I wish he did come under better terms as changing the legislation first then selecting would seem like a more fair process. As due to carelessness on some person part no due diligence was done and he sat in limbo for couple months. Further from that the change they implements in the statue could have been done and pushed in parliament before last year was over. it seems there is lack of any speed to get him in the position. I expect him to take up office sometime next month maybe not the first but by the end at the latest if they don’t bury it again.

If the law was change before announce his appointment i would have no problem with it. As it does bring some doubt as to the impartiality of the judge based on the government changing the law to suit him and would in return I suppose expect something back. If they reopen the position again so that the candidates that where excluded before could now gotten the position it would remove some doubts. As is I doubt the government will do such and it will be mark that will be stain on his career. So should the law be change yes. Should the law be change now to suit the candidate no. Leaves to many questions as to if the judge can truly be impartial.

@ac

That it is but changing a law would give greater fear of impartiality. Maybe it is time we take up the suggestion by Pilgrim and have a judicial commission appointed from many lawyers, judges, politicians.

True any appointment could be claimed to be corrupt. At least this way it be more broad approach than a single person and we can hope for a more fair approach than any single person deciding it

@Anthony.
the judicial commission could be problematic. For on it could be heavily tilted in favour of one party or another. Meaning that it could present a problem if most of them on the commission have a party leaning which can be bias initself. THere are other issues like conflict of interest. THose who had done favours for each other. Sooner or later that commission would be scrutinized and seen as ineffective by the public at large

a/c, anthony
The real problem is that after four decades of nationhood, politicians are still very immature and if the head is so, the body is so too;bajans need to grow up