Update: Registrar Exposed To Action For Defamation By Senior Lawyers

Attorney at law Hal Gollop, one of six top lawyers in Barbados not registered

Earlier this month BU posted the blog Registrar And Registry Exposed To Action For Defamation By Senior Lawyers. Several prominent attorneys-at-law saw their names omitted from the Official Gazette of December 29, 2011, proof that they are registered to practice their profession in Barbados. Among them: Sir Frederick Smith Q.C., Mr Edmund  King Q.C., Mr Maurice King Q.C., Mrs Beverley Walrond Q.C., Mr Hal Gollop, Mr Vernon Smith Q.C. BU sources advised then that letters were dispatched to the Registrar demanding immediate redress.

Again usual BU sources have advised that the affected lawyers – their silk and prominence notwithstanding – have not been able to provoke a response from the Registrar. To those who are forced to deal with the Registrar a lack of response is not a surprise. As a consequence several of the lawyers affected are drafting proceedings against the Registrar and the damages lodged will likely be significant. Why the Registrar would be lethargic in dealing with correcting the error and or responding to the learned counsel appears to be just plain ignorant. The inaction is likely to burden and already congested court system.

As to why this is happening despite the best effort of the previous government to implement public sector reform? The  answer may be found in a public sector ‘reacting’ to no wage increases in recent years. Yet another disaffected segment of the electorate which the government will have to confront with a general election looming.  When the Eager 11 issue broke BU proffered the explanation that one of the reasons of dissatisfaction targeted Prime Minister Stuart’s inaction at dealing with the sloth of the civil service. Prime Minister Stuart has ministerial portfolio with the civil service. It is insightful that Minister Donville Inniss has been stridently echoing a similar view of late which was highlighted in todays Nation editorial.

For those who view what is happening in Barbados through politically non partisan lenses, the governance system which has served us well is imploding right before our eyes.

41 comments

  • The system of governance that has serve us well no longer exists. Political interference, in many cases dimwitted politicians who are influenced by senior civil servants, has destroyed a system that was the envy of our regional neighbours.

    Civil servants are not machines: they have feelings and sometimes the less than ideal service that is experienced is a reaction to unfair labour practices. Just imaging you are qualified for a job: it becomes vacant; and at that point they change the qualifications to exclude you from applying. Then some political hack gets the job and not surprisingly his qualification match the new requirements. You are then required to teach you new boss. Sometimes people who are close to retirement go home, but others who can’t afford that option sulk and thereafter don’t go the extra mile to satisfy anyone. There is a situation where they changed the qualifications to suit someone from outside: he gets the job and they change back the qualifications.

    Like

  • St George's Dragon

    I am sure the situation that Caswell Franklyn describes occurs. I do not, however, think it is the major reason why the public service in Barbados fails to deliver nor should it be seen as an excuse for lack of delivery.
    Public sector reform is clearly not working, at least not at the pace people want.
    You can tinker around the edges of reform, like trying to get public servants to be at their desks during working hours, for instance, but I do not believe that will change things fast enough.
    My suggestion is to privatise things. Allow entrepreneurs like Bizzie Wiiliams to bid to run the BWA. Make payment subject to meeting certain performance criteria, for example:
    – Installation of the new water mains to be within an agreed period.
    – Water lost through leaks to be reduced from the current 50% (?) to an agreed amount.
    – Notified water leaks to be repaired within an agreed timescale.
    Failure to achieve these criteria would mean claw-backs under the contract.
    An entrepreneur would sort out a department like the BWA one time and I am sure would not have opted for a new headquarters building in order to be able to do it.

    Like

  • The Prime Minister is on record as saying the civil service must be commended.

    He is responsible for the civil service.

    Ordinary Barbadians know by observation that we have civil servants galore who are short changing Bajan taxpayers.

    It was last week a blogger posted how the NHC is padded with unnecessary head count.

    We know that President of the NUPW Walter Maloney, the union responsible for representing most civil servants, is assigned to the NHC.

    Like

  • The Cilvil service is the employment sponge in Barbados.

    If it was made more efficient the economy of Barbados would be in deep trouble.

    Barbados uses civil servants to recycle money. We need civil servants to keep the likes of Andrew 10% Bynoe in Business.

    Like

  • “….the damages lodged will likely be significant.” And anyone really think he/she gives a rats ass how much damages would be awarded. He/she won’t be paying damages damages out of his pocket. Like the millions owed to Al Barrack it’s the tapayers who will pay.

    Like

  • @Caswell. Normally, I vehemently disagree with you. However, your comments of February 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM are instructive and point taken – it is an issue that needs to be addressed. If these practices you describe subsist (and you and I both know that they do) they inevitably rob people doing a good job so that they can achieve advancement of the impetus to excel – and just to advance the aspirations of some political toady. It is disgraceful I agree, but it really only affects a very small percentage of civil servants.

    However, I think that David has identified a far greater problem, the basis of which is the difficulty experienced in firing civil servants (and, Casewell, I am not talking about the small percentage identified by you who are doing a good job and then being unfaired). In private enterprise, those who do not do their jobs would be let go, because a business either succeeds and makes money, or it has to close. It is clearly high time that Government started acting as a private business (God knows its ministers and high-ups certainly live and act as if they were Bill Gates) and firing civil servants (which is, believe it or not, a LARGE percentage of the civil service) who are simply marking time and collecting a pay check for doing nothing and then collecting pensions upon retirement.

    If we do not rid ourselves of the international questions over our viability as an off-shore investment port and maximise our investment that way, with the vagaries of tourism, we are, frankly, gambling at unfavourable odds with the well-being of our citizens.

    The front line (or show case) for Barbados as an off-shore port is and always has been its Justice System. People who pay millions of dollars into Barbados must have the assurances that they will receive timely redress and action on legal complaints. But more than that, such timely legal action is the right of every Bajan due to the espousal by Barbados of the Charter of Magna Carta which is almost 800 years old. Yet Barbados’ Justice System is operating in a state that would not be tolerated in 1215.

    And the fault now lies squarely with Government. Not just this government, but the Arthur government which it succeeded and which, by the totally unacceptable appointment of Simmons as CJ, is the author of what the Stuart government appears to be reluctant to rock the political boat and clear up. And we normal, taxpaying Bajans, if we are not suffering now, will certainly come to suffer later.

    The solution as far as the Justice System is really simple. Enact legislation whereby judges are forced to render their decisions within a maximum of 6 months, failing which, they can be summarily dismissed without pension rights. After all, denial of justice is obstruction of justice is gross misconduct by a judge. Then start working on the rest of the mess via civil service reforms at once, not when it is “politically expedient”.

    @David. Your source, I can confirm, is, once again, correct. Affected counsel HAS written to the Registrar, and so far she has not had the professional courtesy or personal brought-upsy to respond. She seems to have adopted the general court and civil service attitude learned from the ostrich – bury your head in the sand (or in the case of both government and opposition, up your own or any accommodating fundamental orifices) and it will go away.

    You are also 100% correct that this is not going away and that proceedings are indeed being drawn up against the Registrar and that damages will almost certainly be VERY high, not to mention costs. But that matter can escalate even more, in that once the actions are filed, the Registrar is in a very tight corner as far as conflict and undue influence are concerned (which are grounds for further actions). And if even the Barbados High Court and Court of Appeal take the Registrar’s side, I believe that we all know the sort of hammering Barbados’ Justice System will take ONCE AGAIN at the hands of the CCJ. And lawyers worldwide will read it (they do, you know – on behalf of the clients who pay them very large retainers for their advice on where to invest and where NOT to invest) and our overseas investments will take another massive hit.

    Summary: If these actions against the Registrar are filed, she can claim only no contest. She will then, through her own complete incompetence (and it is complete incompetence if you are Registrar of the Court and have no idea of the complete list of lawyers licensed to appear before the court, including several QCs), through her professional rudeness (not discourtesy, downright pig manners) to reply to silks (or any lawyer) who has addressed a letter to her, through her evident personal lack of any ordinary proper upbringing to have the courtesy and consideration to address correspondence and complaints regarding an unjust failing on her part, – she will have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in court time, millions of dollars in legal costs and tens of millions of dollars in damages. In addition, she will have expensed Barbados for the loss of billions of dollars in overseas investments.

    In any private enterprise, this would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Likely, it would be grounds for criminal prosecution (in certain cases).

    With the Registrar? Why the hell should she care? After all, she and her predecessors have been ripping Barbados off life this for YEARS!!!!!

    And she probably thought, as did her masters, when you first aired the matter that given a little time, it would go away. Clearly the effect and scope and DEDICATION of the social media has escaped her and them. It isn’t going away.

    Like

  • Amused

    You made a few minor mistakes in the above but I will only address one for now.
    I know the Registrar personally and well. There was nothing wrong with her upbringing: her manners seem to have developed when she reached the top. I cannot understand the transformation. I have heard it suggested and I agree that there might be a need for psychological or psychiatric intervention. You never met a more pleasant person prior to her promotion as Registrar.

    Like

  • Can we cut to the bone please.

    Where should responsibility lie to dish out discipline in this matter?

    The Prime Minister with responsibility for the civil service or the Chief Justice with responsibility for the Judicature?

    Like

  • @Amused –

    “…she will have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in court time, millions of dollars in legal costs and tens of millions of dollars in damages. In addition, she will have expensed Barbados for the loss of billions of dollars in overseas investments”.

    Don’t you think you are exaggerating and overstating the seriousness of the matter just a bit?

    I wish the lawyers would take a stand against the REAL INJUSTICE in the system in Barbados.

    And as Bush Tea would say – what damages what? For what? What harm has been done? What loss has been suffered by those whose names were not on the list on how will this loss be quantified and proven?

    Tell them try and find some real issues that affect people in this country, especially poor people that have been suffering for years, and don’t react only when it affects them personally.

    Like

  • @Brutus

    Are you not being a little harsh?

    You are right we have many causes out there which lawyers can take on but in this case we have our most prominent lawyers who have been affected by the omission i.e. their registration not being Gazetted..

    The issue here is the Registrar’s seemly unwillingness to be conciliatory.

    This is a case of negligence bordering on incompetence.

    Even if damages are not forthcoming at the level Amused suggests the cost to the Crown and therefore taxpayers of litigation should be of concern.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    And where is her boss in all of this?

    Shouldn’t he intervene and resolve the matter forthwith? He was appointed to bring a measure of effectiveness to “easily solved’ matters like this one. Says a lot about this bunch, right Canadian Sargeant?

    Like

  • @Brutus | February 20, 2012 at 7:49 AM. You, my friend, confuse me. I don’t think you are a lawyer, yet you have an excellent grasp of the subject. I say that I don’t think you are a lawyer, simply because if you were actually having to deal with the Justice System on a daily basis, you would know for a fact that I am not overstating the matter at all.

    Briefly:

    The lawyers who have, in effect, been defamed by the Registrar will have to hire lawyers to represent them in the action(s) against the Registrar. Each one will likely instruct their own counsel. There are more than 6 ommissions and each name omitted will have two counsel in respect of whom costs will be awarded. These counsel will charge not less than $400 per hour for their time. Add to that filing fees.

    The Registrar will be represented in the action by someone from the solicitor-general’s office, so budget in their time as well, which is, of course, chargeable to the taxpayer.

    Then there is the cost of the time and facilities of the court – another taxpayer expense. Time, moreover, that could be more properly applied to eradicating the enormous backlog of cases, rather than in dealing with a matter the source of which is massive incompetence on the part of the Registry.

    If that matter goes to appeal, double the costs and if it goes to the CCJ, then that is yet more cost.

    Each counsel who has been defamed has the right to retain their own counsel.

    In light of this, do you still think I am exaggerating?

    You also say, “I wish the lawyers would take a stand against the REAL INJUSTICE in the system in Barbados.” I completely agree. But I ask you to consider how this can be done in the face of a Registrar who refuses to reply to letters from lawyers (even if they are silks) asking and urging that cases be set down. How can this be done if, once they are set down, they have to be adjourned because the files have been lost by the Registry. Etc. How would you suggest that lawyers take a stand against injustice if they cannot get the courts to hear the damned cases in the first place? How do you suggest they take a stand against injustice when they have to wait YEARS for incompetent judges to render decisions? If you have any idea how this can be accomplished, then please enlighten everyone. The gratitude of the counsel would be enormous.

    As for the matter of losses, these will not be that difficult to quantify, let me assure you. The damages will be quite large.

    As for the rest, I agree with David, except that I don’t think it is “bordering” on incompetence. I believe it IS incompetence.

    The whole system is a complete mess. It needs to be resurrected and STRINGENT action taken. This matter with the Gazette is merely illustrative of the terminal breakdown of the Justice System and, for once, the lawyers are blameless. The fault lies with the Registry from top to bottom and with a lot of incompetent judges who ought not to be on the bench in the first place.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Amused | February 20, 2012 at 9:12 AM |
    “The fault lies with the Registry from top to bottom and with a lot of incompetent judges who ought not to be on the bench in the first place.”

    Oh what an admission or should we say a deep ‘christian’ confession from you!
    What a ringing endorsement of the effectiveness of the law faculty of the UWI!
    Oh what great returns to the poor Bajan taxpayers for financing free tertiary education in these disciplines leading to a widely acceptable level of incompetence and a big headed attitude of arrogance and disdain to ‘lesser’ mortals!

    Like

  • @David,

    Yes, it felt a bit harsh as I wrote it but the response from Amused did not help.

    The lawyers should pick something else over which to make a stand. Of all the major injustices over the years this is where they would choose to make a stand? I find that hard to believe.

    Note that Amused has not yet explained what harm has been done to the lawyers.

    David, when I first read this I suspected that it was all tongue-in-cheek and that perhaps the lawyers mentioned did not in fact pay their registration fees. I still have that suspicion.

    Like

  • @Brutus

    Perhaps you are correct but usually a person is likely to respond to an issue which strikes closer to home.

    In this case the lethargy of the Registrar maybe a good example.

    Like

  • @Brutus

    BU is aware that fees were paid by those not Gazetted.

    Like

  • David | February 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM |Can we cut to the bone please.
    Where should responsibility lie to dish out discipline in this matter?
    The Prime Minister with responsibility for the civil service or the Chief Justice with responsibility for the Judicature?

    David

    I plan not to address this issue again because I seems not to be getting through, no matter how hard I try to explain. The Prime Minister might have ministerial responsibility for the Public Service, but that does not mean that he is responsible for discipline. If you continue to doubt me check with the Constitution, particularly section 94. In matters of discipline the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Public Service Commission. In the case of the Legal Service, the GG acts on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

    Like

  • @David – ok, I will take your word for it.

    Like

  • Thanks Caswell

    But what should happen and how it is mobilized to happen seems to be at variance.

    For example the country is currently waiting for Minister Byer-Suckoo to arrest the LIME issue.

    Like

  • @Brutus

    To support their filing to start proceedings they would have to show proof of payment no?

    On 20 February 2012 14:10, David wrote: > Thanks Caswell > > But what should happen and how it is mobilized to happen seems to be > at variance. > > For example the country is currently waiting for Minister Byer-Suckoo > to arrest the LIME issue. >

    Like

  • @Brutus. I can’t give you specifics as to loss. That is up to the individual lawyers. Since most overseas clients actually do carry out due diligence before engaging lawyers and since they check on the professional status of those lawyers, this is one area in which individual losses would need to be ascertained and verified. Given the prominence of just of few of the lawyers named, I think it is certain we are looking at substantial loss – which they will be able to prove. What the Registrar has done is akin to saying, “Don’t engage these lawyers or, if you have, fire them and hire new ones because they are not licensed practitioners.” Anyway, by the Registrar’s failure to do a quick fix and issue an apology in a timely manner, it looks to me as if you will have your wish and find out exactly how the damages are quantified and supported.

    I too am aware that the lawyers named did indeed pay their fees and I confirm David’s statement that proof of the payment of these fees is integral to an action against the Registrar.

    Like

  • @Amused – so you are suggesting that as part of due diligence, potential clients overseas or in Barbados actually check to see if a lawyer is “registered” before hiring them? LOL!

    Where exactly would they check?

    So these substantial losses would have accrued between the time the list was published (Dec 29, 2011) and now?

    Like

  • @Amused – I hope the lawyers have all now paid their fees for 2012, which were due by January 31, 2012. Where can a prospective client check this?

    I hope I am not spoiling your fun, but this is beginning to sound like another way for lawyers to try and get their hands on taxpayer’s money – after all this is where any payment of damages would come from.

    Will these defamation suits go onto the 5 to 10 year waiting list or will they be fast-tracked through the system?

    Like

  • Amused | February 20, 2012 at 9:12 AM |
    The whole system is a complete mess. It needs to be resurrected and STRINGENT action taken. This matter with the Gazette is merely illustrative of the terminal breakdown of the Justice System and, for once, the lawyers are blameless. The fault lies with the Registry from top to bottom and with a lot of incompetent judges who ought not to be on the bench in the first place.

    mum……mun..not to be partisan, but seems like a permeating disease has overtaken us…..a sense of who cares

    Like

  • @Brutus. You are not spoiling MY fun. Please do not assume for one second that I am involved personally in the fracas. I am not. I am a bystander on this.

    And YES, since it is a public office that has defamed individual private practitioners, then it is the public purse that will have to pay. It is up to those who control the public purse to dismiss from the public employ the person who must bear the responsibility for the defamation.

    But you know, the solution is very simple. The defamation was uttered, through omission, by the Official Gazette upon advice from the Registry. Rectifying this is extremely simple. It requires an apology in the Official Gazette of equal prominence to what caused the offence in the first place to all those lawyers (all individually named) who, having paid these fees, were omitted. In addition, a corrected list to be published. It would also be appropriate for the Registrar to write personally to all the defamed lawyers tendering her own and the Registry’s abject apology. Thus, the matter would likely end at no extraordinary expense to the public purse. BUT, has anything been done by the Registrar (a public servant) to save the public purse through this simple and time-honoured (and honourable) method? Hell no!!! She will not even respond to letters from counsel complaining that they have been defamed. Thus, she is responsible, not only for condoning defamation, but for creating the possibility of very large charges against the public purse. This is not rocket science, you know, it is clear and abundant grounds for summary dismissal by those elected officials who control the public purse.

    How long will it go on? 5 or 10 years? Well, I think I dealt with that earlier. Excessive delays in bringing the matter on for hearing might be blamed on the terminal state of the Registry, but just who do you think ought to bear the blame for that? And just how long do you think it will be, if that happens, before we see a whole lot of constitutional motions?

    And do you for one second think that the spectre of conflict of interest will not be shouted from the roof tops if the matter is delayed?

    You see, if I sue you (Amused v Brutus) and the hearing of the case is delayed, it would be difficult to impute conflict of interest on the part of the Registry. BUT, if the Registrar is sued in her capacity as Registrar and it is delayed, then the inference of conflict of interest is, in my view, inescapable.

    Like

  • @ Amused is their any hope for improvement in the legal system in Barbados?

    It is beyond reason that people have to wait years to settle estates and other non contentious civil matters.

    If the facts of the issue are as you presented here, why would the Registrar refuse to issue apologies left right and centre to “save face” and prevent lawsuits ?

    Like

  • @ Amused and Old Onion…

    You are spot on. The thing is symptomatic. Even the newest recruits to the profession understand the problem after five minutes.

    Like

  • You will probably find the situation has persisted because people like it so.

    The attorney at law who can manipulate the broken system is usually the one with the clients.

    In some cases no outcome is a win and the ability to achieve the null result is what is valued …… and paid for!!

    I am pretty sure that there are attorneys who make their living by being pastmasters in tying up the court in knots and getting nothing done.

    Unfortunately for them if and when things change for the better the day of reckoning will arrive, ….. in some cases sooner rather than later.

    …. and then there is the CCJ making noises like it wants a change for the better.

    We will see what we will see!!

    Interesting days ahead.

    Like

  • @Hants. I still continue to have great hopes for the CJ. He hasn’t really had a chance to touch down yet, so he still has the luxury of time, before the blame starts to attach to him as well.

    That said, to a large extent the CJ’s is restricted in what he can do. For truly effective changes to be made, the legislative body needs to do their bit. The trouble is that any government that does what needs (and HAS) to be done, will see some political repercussions. However, the whole system is in crisis and government (whichever party) has to face the fact that if they do NOT take the steps to institute the changes that have to be made, ultimately they will face even more serious repercussions.

    As to why the Registrar would delay or refuse to take the honourable (and easy) steps to rectify the situation can only be answered by the Registrar. I mean, how long would it take to check the lists, check fee payments and then establish who has been defamed and contact the Gazette and have the appropriate notices put in? And just how long would it take to write a letter that says:

    “Dear counsel, I have your letter of (date) and (without admissions of any kind) I am urgently investigating the matter as a matter of priority. I will contact you as soon as my investigations are complete. I hope this will be satisfactory to you and that we can resolve the issue effectively and very soon. Yours faithfully.”

    If the Registrar wishes to use that as a template, she is welcome to do so. Then, put the letters in an envelope and either send them by hand, or stick them in the post.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Amused | February 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM |
    “@Hants. I still continue to have great hopes for the CJ. He hasn’t really had a chance to touch down yet, so he still has the luxury of time, before the blame starts to attack to him as well.”
    Versus
    “Dear counsel, I have your letter of (date) and (without admissions of any kind) I am urgently investigating the matter as a matter of priority. I will contact you as soon as my investigations are complete. I hope this will be satisfactory to you and that we can resolve the issue effectively and very soon. Yours faithfully.
    If the Registrar wishes to use that as a template, she is welcome to do so. Then, put the letters in an envelope and either send them by hand, or stick them in the post.”

    What a contradiction in your position on this crucial matter! What is implied here is that the Registrar’s boss has a lot of time for social and public functions but cannot spend 15 minutes to compile such a letter as suggested by and instruct her to issue it “tout de suite”. What kind of foolishness are you prepared to put up with in regard to simple effective management? What luxury of time for such a facile task?

    Like

  • It never ceases to amaze me , that people continue to focus the incompetence of the Civil Service as if it can only be found in the public service. Let’s understand that because of our guaranteed education up to tertiary level, most of our population has gone through the same school system. This so call incompetence in the public service I have experienced in lawyers offices, in banks, in Bridgetown companies. example; I have gone to lawyers on at least two occasions to have some work done , in one case it is poorly done costing me in excess of $5000 and yet the situation wasn’t remedied and in another case after having paid for consultation and the writing of a letter the secretary was unable to even find any record of the referral. and I can give examples about banks,, come on! the things we complain about in the public service can also be found in the “efficient private sector” to a greater degree.

    Like

  • Before passing judgement about the functions of an office one should seek to find out how the list is prepared and sent to be gazetted and i am sure that the affected attorneys received correspondence regarding same. There is more in the mortar than the pester. The Registrar is the head of the Registration Department and not the Chief Justice he is responsible for the Judges. Get the facts before placing blame where it should not be.And how many times were clients told by attorneys that it is the fault of the registry when they may have not completed what they should have. Check before you take sides.
    Justice is not only for the lawyers when they are affected think on that ……………………………………..

    Like

  • Quoting Amused “Then, put the letters in an envelope and either send them by hand, or stick them in the post.”

    Ah this business of using an 18th century technology (writing letters and sending them by hand or post) in the 21st century is a large part of the problem.

    Why can’t Barbados’ attorneys and Barbados’s courts use 21st century social media such as email, Twitter, Facebook BB messenger etc.

    Actually I am surprised that some attorneys are still not using quills and ink as they did in the 1930’s (what!!! use something as modern as a typewriter in 1930’s Barbados, never mind that at that time typewriters were about 100 years old)

    The first thing I did when I consulted an attorney was to ask him for his email address and thereafter I communicated with him entirely by that means and only showed up at his office or the court if I needed to sign something. And since email tracks exactly when a document is sent, if I do not hear from him in good time I resend the same email with a nice note: Dear Mr. Big Shot Attorney, On January 3 at 9:30:23 I sent you this email enquiring about the status of X. since I have not heard from you etc.

    I think that we need to amend al necessary laws to give electronic communications legal status, and UWI needs to develop and teach a compulsory course, they may want to law it “Electronic communications and the law” All law firms and lawyers in private practice need to get up to speed in the everyday use of modern social media. BCC needs to do this too for thieir legal clerks course.

    It is a disgrace that elderly couples still feel the need to travel thousands of miles to do that which can be done remotely.

    For example a few yeas ago I had a piece of land surveryed for a sister in law who lives abroad and questions were asked about how I would get the original documents to her and whether it should be given to a local lawyer for safekeeping. I sent it by Fedex and 23 hours later I checked on line and saw that her husband had signed for it.

    Business fixed.

    My feeling is that the best place for an important document is in the custody of the document owner.

    Like

  • Quoting amused “abject ”

    Abject is so, so colonial, so, so 18th century.

    Like

  • @sue john | March 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM.

    1. “Before passing judgement about the functions of an office one should seek to find out how the list is prepared and sent to be gazetted”. Why? It is incumbent on the Registrar to prepare the list properly!! End of story.

    2. “……and I am sure that the affected attorneys received correspondence regarding same”. Ambiguous. Probably deliberately so. Is it PRIOR correspondence telling them they were to be excluded from the Gazette List? OR, is it that the Registrar has FINALLY got around to responding to their letters complaining of exclusion and threatening to sue her ass? Elucidate for us.

    3. “There is more in the mortar than the pester.” Is there? What, pray, is a pester when it is at home? I always thought it was a mortar and PESTLE. Perhaps a PESTER is a shortened form of expression that describes a pestilential Registry and Registrar, most of whom should be fired.

    4. “The Registrar is the head of the Registration Department and not the Chief Justice he is responsible for the Judges.” So let me get this right. The Registrar adjudicates certain matters that are legally binding, unless they go on appeal. The function of the Registry is to provide support for the Courts. The Court of Appeal has its own Registry to provide support for it. And here I am for over XXX years labouring under what you say is the delusion that the CJ is head of the Judicial System and now you are instructing me that the Registry is not a part of the Judicial System. Really!!!!! So now we have not two, but three independent public bodies. Parliament, the Courts and the Registry. I never knew that. Many counsel will be most interested.

    But in the final analysis, it matters naught. The Registrar HAS been called to book for the defamation (and it IS defamation, no matter how the list is prepared, any prior correspondence (which I deny there was) on the list, and, since, according to you, in no way militates against the FACT that the Registrar and the Registry published an official list of attorneys licensed to practice law before the Courts of Barbados which, by the omission of their names from said list, defamed certain counsel.

    Like

  • Perhaps “sue john” is the person responsible for the offending list published in the Gazette.

    Like

  • Amazing to read the Nation newspaper isreporting on what the CJ is said about the huge backlog of cases in our Courts.

    Here is the question he asked the audience while delivering a the Fair Trading Commission Lecture last Friday:

    “We have a real problem. and the question has o be asked: how did we get to this?

    We definitely need to do things differently.”

    He mentioned ADR as a solution and he alluded that the international business sector is being affected by the congestion of case files.

    The CJ’s postilion sounds familiar?

    Amazing!

    Like

  • Quoting today’s Nation “Barbados’ judicial system is clogged with almost 3 000 unfinished cases…Chief Justice Marston Gibson says he knows the way out, but that attorneys at law might resist, because it could CUT INTO THEIR PROFITS.”

    Dear Amused: Please comment.

    I think that I am beginning to like this Chief JUstice.

    It is high time that somebody cut the arses of a lotta these Bajan lawyers.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Random Thoughts | March 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM |

    We have heard it all before. Same shit, different day!
    This NATO (No Action Talk Only) approach would get us nowhere soon.
    The DLP administration was saying the same thing pre January 2008.

    Those who can do, those who can’t talk!

    Like

  • SirSimple SimonPresidentForLife

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2019/12/08/lady-beverley-walrond-passes-away/
    One of the island’s leading attorneys in family and child law Beverley Walrond Q.C has passed away, family members have confirmed.Lady Walrond succumbed to injuries suffered in a car accident last Thursday in Florida.
    Her husband, Sir Errol Mickey Walrond, was also involved in the accident. He remains hospitalized in Intensive Care Unit in Miami.

    Like

  • SirSimple SimonPresidentForLife

    Life is so short. Since March of 2012 the Registrar has passed on and so has Sir Frederick Smith, and so has Amused, and now Beverley Waldron.

    May they all rest in peace.

    “The words of the Preacher,the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.” Ecclesiastes 1-12

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s