Bahamas News
01-20-05, - 08:50 PM
Major Setback For Stubbs
Bianca Symonette
Holy Cross MP Sidney Stubbs, right, leaves court on Wednesday with his attorney, Thomas Evans, QC. (Photo by Omar Barr)
Holy Cross Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs faced a major setback in court on Wednesday when Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall ruled against the argument for annulment of his bankruptcy order that was made by his legal team.
The judge agreed with the argument made by attorney Wayne Munroe, who represents Mr. Stubbs’s former creditor, Gina Gonzalez. Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson issued the bankruptcy order against Mr. Stubbs last March after he failed to satisfy a debt owed to Ms. Gonzalez.
On Wednesday, Mr. Munroe advanced the argument that an annulment can only be granted under Section 26 of the Bankruptcy Act.
The trustee in the matter, Supreme Court Registrar Estelle Gray-Evans, would have to advertise, inviting any existing creditors of Mr. Stubbs to send in claims outlining the MP’s debts to them.
Pointing to this course of action in his written ruling, Sir Burton said that Mr. Stubbs “must first seek to galvanise the trustee into action under the said Section 26 as the next step in his efforts to have the extant order annulled.”
Under the section, after a settlement on how Mr. Stubbs plans to dispose of any existing debts, he would have grounds to pursue an annulment.
Sir Burton left it open for Mr. Stubbs’s legal team to pursue an application under Section 26.
Mr. Stubbs’s attorneys had argued that because his debt in the Gonzalez matter was settled there were grounds for annulment.
But that was proven to be wrong.
Mr. Stubbs’s lead attorney, Thomas Evans, QC, responded to the ruling saying, “It was a fair interruption of the Act that has led to an absurd result. It still begs the question of whether it makes sense for the court to permit an annulment of an adjudication where arrangements have been made to pay a debt and it does not allow it when the debt has been paid.”
He added, “I intend to amend the application to bring it under section 26. It makes more practical sense to do that rather than going the route of appeal at this particular stage. He has not dismissed the summons. The summons is still alive so as long as that’s the case we will go on. It is probably going to be a longer process than we have anticipated that it would be.”
Mr. Munroe pointed out that the antiquated Bankruptcy Act did not provide for the annulment without going through the procedure outlined under Section 26.
“The point that I was making with regard to Colonial statues is that a lot of them do not give right to the colonists that the people in England had and that is what we were encountering in this matter…The government will need to revisit the question because the Act was passed essentially in 1870.”
In his written ruling, Sir Burton pointed to deficiencies in the Bankruptcy Act.
“In light of my earlier observations as to apparent deficiencies in the Act, I am directing the Registrar to make available to the Attorney General the transcript of counsel’s submissions in the course of today’s proceedings with a view to his considering whether he should advise the government that it should invite Parliament’s early consideration of modern bankruptcy legislation better suited to the needs of modern business including codifying the powers of the courts at all stages of bankruptcy proceedings,” he said.
During the opening of the legal year last week, Attorney General Alfred Sears indicated that the government planned to “reform” the Bankruptcy Act.
Bianca Symonette
Holy Cross MP Sidney Stubbs, right, leaves court on Wednesday with his attorney, Thomas Evans, QC. (Photo by Omar Barr)
Holy Cross Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs faced a major setback in court on Wednesday when Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall ruled against the argument for annulment of his bankruptcy order that was made by his legal team.
The judge agreed with the argument made by attorney Wayne Munroe, who represents Mr. Stubbs’s former creditor, Gina Gonzalez. Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson issued the bankruptcy order against Mr. Stubbs last March after he failed to satisfy a debt owed to Ms. Gonzalez.
On Wednesday, Mr. Munroe advanced the argument that an annulment can only be granted under Section 26 of the Bankruptcy Act.
The trustee in the matter, Supreme Court Registrar Estelle Gray-Evans, would have to advertise, inviting any existing creditors of Mr. Stubbs to send in claims outlining the MP’s debts to them.
Pointing to this course of action in his written ruling, Sir Burton said that Mr. Stubbs “must first seek to galvanise the trustee into action under the said Section 26 as the next step in his efforts to have the extant order annulled.”
Under the section, after a settlement on how Mr. Stubbs plans to dispose of any existing debts, he would have grounds to pursue an annulment.
Sir Burton left it open for Mr. Stubbs’s legal team to pursue an application under Section 26.
Mr. Stubbs’s attorneys had argued that because his debt in the Gonzalez matter was settled there were grounds for annulment.
But that was proven to be wrong.
Mr. Stubbs’s lead attorney, Thomas Evans, QC, responded to the ruling saying, “It was a fair interruption of the Act that has led to an absurd result. It still begs the question of whether it makes sense for the court to permit an annulment of an adjudication where arrangements have been made to pay a debt and it does not allow it when the debt has been paid.”
He added, “I intend to amend the application to bring it under section 26. It makes more practical sense to do that rather than going the route of appeal at this particular stage. He has not dismissed the summons. The summons is still alive so as long as that’s the case we will go on. It is probably going to be a longer process than we have anticipated that it would be.”
Mr. Munroe pointed out that the antiquated Bankruptcy Act did not provide for the annulment without going through the procedure outlined under Section 26.
“The point that I was making with regard to Colonial statues is that a lot of them do not give right to the colonists that the people in England had and that is what we were encountering in this matter…The government will need to revisit the question because the Act was passed essentially in 1870.”
In his written ruling, Sir Burton pointed to deficiencies in the Bankruptcy Act.
“In light of my earlier observations as to apparent deficiencies in the Act, I am directing the Registrar to make available to the Attorney General the transcript of counsel’s submissions in the course of today’s proceedings with a view to his considering whether he should advise the government that it should invite Parliament’s early consideration of modern bankruptcy legislation better suited to the needs of modern business including codifying the powers of the courts at all stages of bankruptcy proceedings,” he said.
During the opening of the legal year last week, Attorney General Alfred Sears indicated that the government planned to “reform” the Bankruptcy Act.