When the second day of the trial involving former BVI Ports Authority Managing Director Claude Skelton-Cline’s lawsuit against government began on Tuesday morning, High Court Justice Vicki Ann Ellis said she hoped the parties would be able to wrap up their arguments by the day’s end.
But by 5 p.m., Mr. Skelton-Cline’s attorney, Tana’ania Small-Davis, was still presenting her case as to why her client should be compensated for government’s decision not to reappoint him as the head of ports, and Ms. Ellis said she had no choice but to adjourn the matter until Sept. 22.
The trial stems from an April 2016 Cabinet decision not to reappoint Mr. Skelton-Cline as the managing director of the BVIPA. Mr. Skelton-Cline headed the ports from December 2012 to December 2015, overseeing the expansion of the cruise pier and the construction of most of Tortola Pier Park — a development that saw cost overruns of more than $30 million, missed construction target dates that resulted in lost tax revenue, and is now under audit after allegations of impropriety.
Technical arguments
While the start of the trial in May revealed details about the inner workings and political machinations of government — including some officials’ opinions about how the pier park project influenced the 2015 elections — Tuesday’s continuation mostly involved technical arguments about whether the former ports MD has a right to legal redress over his non-reappointment.
According to Senior Crown Counsel Giselle Jackman-Lumy, Mr. Skelton-Cline has no such right, in part because employees of statutory bodies do not have the same rights to judicial review as central government employees.
Citing case precedents, Ms. Jackman-Lumy argued that common law affords more rights to employees of central government than it does to employees of statutory bodies.
Ms. Small-Davis did not dispute that assessment, but she said the issue at hand is different than the one raised by Ms. Jackman-Lumy.
Ms. Small-Davis said that after the BVIPA board passed a resolution in January 2015 to reappoint her client as its managing director, Cabinet was legally obligated to approve or disapprove that resolution.
Cabinet’s decision about that resolution was irrational and prejudicial — and thus subject to judicial review — for multiple reasons, including that it took more than a year to make a decision on that resolution and that Cabinet decided against reappointment even though there were no other applicants for the position, Ms. Small-Davis argued.
At the end of the working day on Tuesday, Ms. Ellis set a tentative date for the trial to resume on Sept. 22. If that day turns out to be unavailable for Ms. Small-Davis — a Jamaica-based attorney who said she might have another matter that day — then the trial will resume on Nov. 3, Ms. Ellis said.
{fcomment}