The Barbados Court handed down the decision in favour of Mottley and Walcott in the matter CV1753 Maria Agard Vs Mottley and Walcott.
Read the full text of the decision:
Weeping for Hal Gollop QC | DECISION- CV1753 of 2015- M. Agard v M. Mottley and J. Walcott
The Barbados Court handed down the decision in favour of Mottley and Walcott in the matter CV1753 Maria Agard Vs Mottley and Walcott. Read the full text of the decision: DECISION- CV1753 of 2015- M. Agard v M. Mottley and J. Walcot
73 responses to “Weeping for Hal Gollop QC | DECISION- CV1753 of 2015- M. Agard v M. Mottley and J. Walcott”
-
@David December 30, 2017 at 11:59 AM “should she fire Gollop and tow?”
Yes she should fire him.
And ask for a refund of any money which she has paid him.
-
@Prodigal Son December 30, 2017 at 12:32 AM “This whole episode could have been avoided but Maria is too arrogant.”
A lotta, lotta arrogant people in politics–all parties–even when, or especially when they have nothing at all to be arrogant about.
-
How much does 2 QC’s and 2 juniors cost these days, BDS$100K. Poor Maria Agard, she gone have to pull real teet to pay for that bill of cost.
-
@Well Well & Cut N’ Paste At Your Service December 30, 2017 at 12:00 AM “What the hell is a woodwork teacher, a carpenter doing practicing law.”
A beg ya please, don’t be too hard on carpenters, ya can be as hard as ya like on lawyers–everybody hates lawyers–but leave the carpenters ‘lone. Jesus Christ, that God whom we worship was one ‘o them carpenter fellas.
He wasn’t no lawyer, he din have no Phd either, not even a fake one. Din went to Oxford nor Harvard, nor nor Cambridge, nor Yale, not the Sorbonne nor none ‘o them places.
Yet still we worship him.
-
Nice one, David.
-
The person Agard should sue is that wind bag know – all Gollop for the poor representation she suffered, wow using the wrong form -suing the wrong people.
Elementary my Gollop
-
It is a trend with these slimy lawyers going back decades, I dont know how the Bajan populi missed what they do to their clients, as long as the lawyers are all in bed together, always co-counsel in each other’s cases whether as plaintiffs and defendants….their client’s are the losers….always.
They even put their names, when they are opposing counsels, on each other’s letterheads as co-counsels……to prompt doctors into screwing up medical reports in personal injury cases, Haynes is famous for that.
……had I not seen it myself I would not believe lawyers and QCs could be so low grade and lacking in ethics…and they actually get away with it in the supreme court….that is why I know Justice Gibson could do a hell of a lot more to punish these pretend lawyers, he just needs to review current open cases with the judges involved in those cases…particularly personal injury cases and he will see for himself.
It is time to take down the pretend, fraud lawyers in Barbados…and watch their fraud network dissolve over time.
-
Dear Alleyne,
I read your decision. Really painful. Did you receive any training in writing judgements? Or have you written a Ph.D. thesis a t a top-university, demonstrating your ability to write a text longer than the bill in a rum shop? Examples?
Generally: Use “the Court” or something else instead “I”. Bad style.
Generally: You do not need to repeat any Barbadian QC´s idiocy if the argument is obviously beyond good and evil.
para. 5: You don´t tell the reader the very obvious.
para. 6: “Barbados Labour Party (“the BLP”), a political party in this Island”. What a truism. You do not repeat that the Barbados Labour Party is a political party in Barbados. The name
tells it all.para. 10 first sentence: also redundant.
para 101: “But, this matter is rather more complex.” You don´t start a sentence with “But”. Bad style.
Sincerely, Tron
-
We have three decisions Hyatt, BIDC and BLP.
Three different judges.
How long did it take from the last hearing of each case until the rendering of a decision?
Judge Richards – Last hearing on August 17 2017, Decision on December 20 2017
CCJ’s guideline is within 3 months and no longer than 6 months so Judge Richards met the guideline.
Judge Cornelius – Last hearing March 7 2016, Decision on December 20 2017
Judge Cornelius did not meet the guideline.
You can’t measure Judge Alleyne’s performance from the time the case as filed in 2015 and amended 2016.
What is needed, is the last date on which it was heard and the date of the decision.
That date was April 7 2016. The date of Decision was December 29 2017.
Judge Alleyne does not meet the guideline either but he was faster than Judge Cornelius by one month!!
-
Another form of delay is how long the Registry took to first set the matter down for hearing.
After the first hearing lawyer games and sometimes the Registry can add to the delay.
A file that isn’t before the Judge at the hearing is a common occurrence.
That really is the fault of the Registry and screws up the free flow of a matter.
A lawyer could fail to appear or ask for an adjournment or contrive a special set of circumstances where adjournment is the only option.
In my non practice as a half a lawyer you would be amazed at the various schemes I have seen in use!!
I have seen one lawyer send in a Medical Certificate showing that it isn’t only the rank and file workers that have this avenue covered.
Funny thing, it was a QC and his co counsels were another QC and a junior.
Yet, the matter was adjourned.
I have only seen this tactic used once, it loses its effectiveness after the first time.
Sometimes the Judge or Registrar, if the matter is before the Registrar, may take sick.
These things happen, we are all human.
-
Mr. Hal Gollop Q.C. in association with Ms. Lynette Eastmond and Ms. KaraJe Kellman for the Claimant
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Hasn’t anyone noticed we also had another party leader involved, … besides Mia?
Isn’t Lynette Eastmond a party leader and former BLPite?
-
I have been thinking about the decision Judge Alleyne reached.
It is a very courageous one because it calls into question the competence of a senior member of the Bar and at the same time opens himself up to claims of political bias.
The aggrieved party can appeal and no judge wants to be overturned at appeal.
I give Judge Alleyne a great deal of credit for taking this position.
It took long, but this decision could not have been easy as he needed to get it right in his mind.
Time will tell if at appeal he is overturned.
-
@John
The decision of the Judge should be based on the law and NOT if he or she has the courage to challenge the competency of the establishment.
-
Agree, but judges routinely refer to other judges as “brothers” and “sisters” so there is an element of courage involved in overturning or deciding against a sibling.
It doesn’t take courage to follow the law, it takes courage to decide and weigh both or sometimes all sides in the matter and relate them to the law.
-
I heard David Comissiong on VOB make reference to the good examples available to him as a youngster growing up in Barbados as compared to what obtains today.That is so true.I heard Muhammad Nasser making the same point yesterday.I am of the view also.From primary school,all the way to tertiary and the world of work,things worked in Barbados and people excelled in their professions and craft.In Health the doctors were household names,the surgeons and specialists were renown experts in their field,businessmen and women were examples to follow,water,light and phones worked 99% of the time.Buses were clean and drivers/ conductors polite and considerate.There were few men prisoners and the women prisoners you might count on one hand.Politicians were always encouraged to look over their shoulders for fear of unwanted publicity especially in the Truth.We could field a World X1.Garry Sobers was invincible,the 3W’s formidable,Hall and Griffith feared with well known batsmen taking guard a good foot from the leg wicket,ready for flight to square leg.Bajans were a proud people.The church of the Anglican,Methodist,and Moravian persuasions made their voices heard.Barbados was a great country.Then Freundel Staurt and the DLP destroyed it.
-
Gabriel December 31, 2017 at 12:06 PM #
Perfect, until your last sentence.
-
Going to second Hal’s comment.
It has been going downhill longer than stewardship under Freundel and his gang. It is just that things are so bad now, we can no longer turn a blind eye.
-
Hal
Should I have written,’then Freundel Stuart and the DLP were voted in to office’? -
Gabriel December 31, 2017 at 12:20 PM #
No. Finish at “Barbados was a great country.”
-
Gabriel, so it is.
In former times children from other islands were sent to Barbados to public schools and foreigners even from Canada were eager to catch a Barbadian passport. Today the banks tell their Barbadian clients with mortgages to make their money abroad, since the risk is too high that the local currency collapses.
The revaluation of all values (Nietzsche) –
-
@Gabriel
Lost in a sea of nostalgia, aren’t we? Yuh can’t go home again literally and figuratively and you let DC lead you down the garden path about things being better in the “old days”.
How old is DC anyway? He should get rid of the rose-tinted glasses that are out of vogue I remember some of those times through a different lens: Tertiary education- who had access to it? Doctors were around but who could afford to go to them? Telephones worked but who had them?I will grant one concession the cricketers of today can’t hold a candle to the cricketers of yesteryear but we continue to be suckers for punishment.
Plenty of good examples abound if you want to look for them but they are not publicity hounds so you won’t see them on the pages of the Nation or CBC, they are good at “hiding their light under a bushel”.One can see the glass as half empty but I see it as half full.
-
@ Sargeant who wrote ” the cricketers of today can’t hold a candle to the cricketers of yesteryear ”
Try telling that to a 30 year old.
-
re Tertiary education- who had access to it? I DID
Doctors were around but who could afford to go to them? WE DID
Telephones worked but who had them? WE DID
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.