Pressure Does Burst Pipes

Omari Drakes, Evelyn Gittens & Farmer
Submitted by Cherfleur to follow a submission posted on 9 January 2022 in the case matter CV 871 of 2019
A Win for David vs Goliath

Since 2009 I was on this matter. Landlord’s Agent acting on instructions from Attorney [through Mr Gill] entered my dwelling while I was out of the country and stole my personal items. Paintings, collectibles and our 6-month-old photos [60 yrs n 27 yrs].

Tried to get the police to deal with it to no avail. Had however gotten them to elicit a verbal agreement from the presumptuous crooks [who in fact had gone to the station to report me] to compensate me for my property. Then in 2019 [ten years later] I filed. Mr Omari Drakes’s defense was “Statute Barred”. I proved him wrong. The Judge refused to give me justice, still. But I waited for the order so as to appeal this tomfoolery, to no avail.

However, I applied pressure consistently throughout all that time and finally Clarke Gittens and Farmer is ready to issue the Final Order. One year and six months. Because of the exposé.

INDECENCY!

My advice to people is first:

  1. Handle your own case. You have the details and a better understanding of the events.
  2. Secondly do not be cowed by the woofy talking of stuffy, soothy attorneys, like those I was up against.

This is a new dispensation.

My ships are coming in to port.

The Appeal Court Registry too, emailed me advising of the date for the appeals against BCC and another both of which decisions were given in August 2019 and appeals filed the very next week.

When you step into a RING, be prepared to box to your death.

The following is an email thread between Cherfleur and Evelyn Gittens & Farmer (Read from bottom to top to follow the chronology of the communication, some header info redacted) – Blogmaster

—–Original Message—–
From: Gabrielle Francis
To: Cherfleur; Omari Drakes
Sent: Wed, Jan 26, 2022 10:35 am
Subject: RE: CV 871 of 2019 – WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Good morning Ms. Cherfleur,
We are in possession of the Order dated August 21, 2020. Kindly advise whether you can visit our office on Friday January 28, 2022 to collect the Order.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Gabrielle Francis BSc.
Legal Secretary
From: Cherfleur
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:18 PM
To: Omari Drakes
Cc: Gabrielle Francis
Subject: Re: CV 871 of 2019 – WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Drakes
On August 21st you stated that you were charging for one hour only, that being $375, before being prompted by the judge that i should not be objecting to that because the assessed cost would be much higher based on my claim for what she identified as $46,000 (give or take).
While I appreciate more hours may have been empoyed I do not appreciate the jump from $375 and a gentleman’s agreement to assessed cast and $5,945.
Another matter with a defense submitted and thus more research n analysis was far less.
Your clients were given numerous opportunities since 200o to compensate and settle this matter but reneged.
Regards
Cherfleur
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 08:06:41 AM AST, Omari Drakes <omari.drakes@clarkes.com.bb> wrote:
Dear Cherfleur,
You changed the context of costs claims with your stated intention to appeal. This was communicated to the Court in your presence. The sum I presented to you is what we believe our clients are entitled to receive. It is a claim supported by law. If you wish to offer a different sum you are free to do so but will have to justify the legal basis on which you believe a lower sum is justified. If we are unable to agree we will go back to Court and the Court will make a separate order in relation to costs.
As you would have heard in the hearing the Court arrived at a similar figure to the one that we have claimed so your chances of obtaining a lower figure by way of a Court assessment is low. Please bear this in mind when you make any counter offer.
Regards,
Omari Drakes
Attorney-at-Law
Associate (Litigation)
From: Cherfleur
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:28 AM
To: Omari Drakes
Cc: Gabrielle Francis
Subject: Re: CV 871 of 2019
Dear Mr Drakes:
1. I was under the impression that ‘agreed cost’ meant we discuss a mutual fee, failing which it would be assessed (by the judge).
2. Since I am only now presented with this cost and it is neither agreed or assessed how do you propose receiving a Final Order without the cost included? Does this mean a two part order or an Order with an arbitrary cost?
Please explain.
Is the below your official submission of Cost Application?
Cherfleur
On Monday, September 21, 2020, 09:18:55 AM AST, Omari Drakes <omari.drakes@clarkes.com.bb> wrote:
Good morning Ms. Cherfleur,
The decision was made based on your stated intention to appeal; thereby continuing litigation.
You have previously asked for our claim for costs in the matter. Based on the nature of the matter brought by you, costs must be determined pursuant to Part 65.5 of the Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2008. This rule deals with prescribed costs which are determined based on the value of the claim. You quantified your claim as being the sum of $46,845.00. Based on the prescribed costs table set out at Appendix B of Part 65, the costs on a claim of $46,845.00 are $13,211.25. The sum of $13,211.25 must then be considered in the context of Appendix C of Part 65. To the extent that the matter was adjudicated upon prior to a defence being filed, we are only entitled to claim 45% of the prescribed costs. This being the sum of $5,945.00. In the circumstances, we claim costs in the sum of $5,945.00 on behalf of our clients.
It is our understanding that the we shall shortly receive the final order from the Court. In the circumstances, please let us know where and when would be a convenient time to serve the Order.
Finally, given the current status of the matter, we do not consider it appropriate to include the Judge’s secretary on the email chain. Therefore I have removed her from the chain.
Regards,
Omari Drakes
Attorney-at-Law
Associate (Litigation)
From: Cherfleur
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 6:34 PM
To: Omari Drakes
Subject: CV 871 of 2019
Dear Mr Drakes
I believe the decision on this matter on august 21, was Dismissed, when I responded saying that I would appeal the decision being the only recourse for dismissal.
I have noted that the Draft Order states Struct Out. This makes a difference to the options at my disposal.
Was your decision to reconsider the cost originally stated ($375) because my response was to appeal verses refile or is your decision to reconsider the cost influenced by any course of action I might take to continue litigation?
Having examined the Draft Order I have another option to exercise.
I, therefore, need to know whether your decision to change the cost was determined solely by my initial position to appeal or any other option I may exercise.
Further, if this aspect remains unsettled how can there be a final order or what will the Final Order reflect?
I eagerly await your response and the Final Order.
Regards
Cherfleur

6 comments

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 )

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