The Everton Cumberbatch Versus Leroy Parris, Larry Tatem And Breakers Investment Inc Matter
On March 16, 2012, BU posted the Leroy Parris The Litigant blog. BU has now had sight of the Plaintiff (Everton Cumberbatch’s) Affidavit in support of his action. While not in any way taking a position on the affidavit, BU found it to be a fascinating read and highly recommend it to the BU family.
BU also post the Judgement of the High Court in a motion by the Defendants (Leroy Parris, Larry Tatem, The Breakers Investment Inc) to have the matter discontinued and struck out, in which the Defendants failed.
The action refers to, in the main, the Companies Act Cap. 308 of the Laws of Barbados, Section 228. This section specifically deals with Oppression of the rights of members and officers and charge-holders of a company. We quote one small portion of Section 228:
228. (1) A complainant may apply to the court for an order under this section.
228(2)(c) the powers of the directors of the company or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner, that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregards the interests of, any shareholder or debenture holder, creditor, director or officer of the company, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of. [BU emphases]
BU wishes to stress that:
The allegations contained in Mr Cumberbatch’s affidavit are not at this stage proven.
The substantive matter of the action is sub judice.
BU has not obtained access to the defense (if any) of the Defendants. Out of fairness, we invite those who may have access to the position of the Defendants to scan and send them to BU and BU undertakes the anonymity of the sender(s).
Out of fairness, BU wants to throw some light on the process gone through when appeals for planning permissions from the TCP are made to the Office of the Prime Minister. The PM himself does not hear such appeals. They are placed before a panel of experts which, in its turn, advises the PM on whether the appeal should be upheld or not. The PM then acts on and adopts the advice he receives. These appeals usually involve retaining experts who, in their turn, prepare the appeal and present it in the best possible light, having regard to the prevailing conditions, guidelines and legislation. The panel has the right to recommend amendments to the application, indicating terms upon which they would be prepared to recommend the application for approval by the PM.
BU advises that the documents it has published are filed with the Court and are therefore in the public domain. However, if repeats that some of the allegations contained therein are unproven and to treat them as proven, until the Courts rule, may well constitute defamation. The BU Family, to date and with few exceptions, has shown laudable restraint in not rushing to judgement on matters pending before the Court, particularly when only one side has been aired.
It is our understanding that the Court will shortly rule on this issue.