DonaldBest

Tales from the Courts – The Ongoing Saga of Donald Best, Peter Allard and Marjorie Knox’s Claim to 1% of Barbados XXIX

Peter Allard

Peter Allard

The BU family will know this is a story concerning over 1% of the total landmass of Barbados located on the South Coast through which the ABC Highway runs. A large portion of the ABC Highway was purchased from Kingsland Estates Limited the company that owns this land.

Those who are unfamiliar with the Kingsland Estate Saga  are welcomed to use the BU Search Box by entering the words ‘Kingsland Estates’.  Given the claim over a vast swath of land on a 166 square mile landmass, BU is befuddled why traditional media – with the exception of a few reports by Pat Hoyos –  have imposed an almost total blackout on the story. BU is forced to ask Pat Hoyos how did he come to report on the Kingsland matter anyway. Was he on holiday in London, or did the Nation newspaper pay him to observe and report the case.

Although BU published court filed evidence to support reports the Barbados press decided to ignore a story central to which includes a large tract of our landmass.

Mr Donald Best whose place of residence is a post office box (drop box), and, who was convicted and jailed for contempt of court in Ontario, was released having served his sentence, having appealed his conviction and lost.

After his incarceration he revisited the case he had lost while fronting for Peter Allard cum Marjorie Knox and sued a long list of people in Ontario, including several Bajans he had previously sued – and lost and he has now appealed, again.

Spearheaded by the Barbados defendants, referred to by the Ontario courts as the “Caribbean defendants”, 21 of the 39 defendants applied to the Ontario Court of Appeal for security for costs. Security for costs is defined by Wikipedia as follows (with our emphases):

Security for costs is a common law legal concept of application only in costs jurisdictions, and is an order sought from a court in litigation. The general rule in costs jurisdiction is that “costs follow the event”. In other words, the loser in legal proceedings must pay the legal costs of the successful party. Where a defendant has a reasonable apprehension that its legal costs will not be paid for by the plaintiff if the defendant is successful, the defendant can apply to the court for an order that the plaintiff provide security for costs. Furthermore, the amount that is ordered by the Judge is in direct correlation to the strength or weakness of the plaintiff’s case brought herewith. The weaker the probability of the plaintiff prevailing, the higher the security order.

Typically a claimant will be outside the jurisdiction of the court: the law of security for costs recognises that orders of the court relating to payment of a party’s legal costs can be very difficult to enforce in non-common law jurisdictions, and so will order security to be provided. Security can also be ordered where a plaintiff is insolvent, or prone to vexatious litigation.

Security is usually provided in the form of a bank cheque paid into the court, or held in a trust account operated jointly by both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s lawyers.

If the defendant is successful, the money can be applied against the costs order. If the claimant is successful, the security is returned to the claimant.

It appears that Mr Best still owes a few of the “Caribbean defendants” $400,000 Canadian from his first litigation reported by BU commencing in 2007. Mr Best has still not paid his court-ordered costs (neither has his counsel, Mr Lipinsky who was adjudged by the Ontario courts to be jointly and severally liable for the costs) of Mr Best’s latest foray in the Ontario courts on matters within the sovereign jurisdiction of Barbados.

Despite the foregoing, Mr Best has now attempted to appeal, again. And he has come up against Ontario Justice of Appeal Hoy who has granted the defendants the mouth-watering sum of over CDA$600,000 (about BBD$1.2 million) which, if not paid into court within 30 days Mr Best’s appeal stands dismissed. Here is the endorsement of Hoy ACJO.

The problem with all this is that you cannot get blood out of a stone and Mr Best does not have sufficient assets in Canada that can be attached to pay these costs. So, although Mr Best cum Mr Peter Allard paid Best’s previous attorney Mr McKenzie almost CDA$4 million and must have paid Mr Lipinsky a fair sum too, certain of the Caribbean defendants may well find themselves out of pocket to the tune of almost CDA$.75 million (BBD$1.5 million). But to paraphrase Mr Richard Cox, “What is $1.5 million between friends?”

Mr Allard owns Graeme Hall swamp and has sued the Government of Barbados under its BIT with Canada. BU has produced court filed documents proving Mr Allard’s involvement. Mr Allard was the paymaster of Mr Best and his wife and company and some of his children; Mr Allard was the paymaster of Mr McKenzie and his wife; Mr Allard paid for blogs for hire (possibly reporters for hire Pat?) and the setting up of blogs to advance his agendas; Mr Allard paid Alair Shepherd QC and Tariq Khan here in Barbados to represent Marjorie Knox and himself. All of this cost millions of dollars.

Maybe Barbados as a nation has no right to complain about non-payment of costs and damages, since it appears that it practices the same thing – it has been widely reported by the local media that Barbados has still not paid its obligations in respect of Shanique Myrie matter. So maybe Barbados deserves Best – and Best deserves Barbados. And maybe both deserve the CCJ which decided in effect that security for costs awarded against Marjorie Knox in Barbados in the amount of BBD$1 million and then fortified by the Privy Council by a further BBD$300,000 all the while Knox’s sole assets were subject to successful litigation culminating in a charging order.

Tags: , , ,

21 Comments on “Tales from the Courts – The Ongoing Saga of Donald Best, Peter Allard and Marjorie Knox’s Claim to 1% of Barbados XXIX”

  1. Violet C Beckles January 25, 2016 at 8:36 AM #

    Mr Allard owns Graeme Hall swamp? Love to see the deed for that, that alone maybe an issue, Alair Shepherd QC is one off those lawyers named not in a good light,

    Before any case go to court for land in Barbados , Clear Title must be establish .Many are fighting for land that either side own or had right to sell .

    All parties are starting from the point of where and who they bought from , Making good work and payment for lawyers that know its all lies and fraud.

    Barbados problems local and international is LAND BASED. DO your homework People and Lawyers before robbing the Public,

    Like

  2. Alvin Cummins January 25, 2016 at 9:07 AM #

    @Violet…
    “Tied from tief men God ;high.” Old Bajan saying.

    Like

  3. flyonthewall January 25, 2016 at 9:36 AM #

    @David
    Thanks for this update. This is one of the more complicated cases to hit Barbados, lots of legal twists and turns, and our media don’t have the attention span to keep abreast of it. To write about it means immersing oneself in the back and forth between the litigants and the court rulings. This takes research and analysis, and I cannot think of another journalist in Barbados other than Pat Hoyos who would have tackled the challenge. In his defence, I don’t believe he took money from Allard. If my memory serve me right, his coverage of this issue was not all that favourable towards him. BTW I’m not Pat Hoyos.

    Like

  4. Alvin Cummins January 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM #

    @Violet….
    Correction. “Tief from tief mek God laugh”

    Like

  5. Well Well & Consequences January 25, 2016 at 10:28 AM #

    Alvin….is Samantha related to you?

    Like

  6. Violet C Beckles January 25, 2016 at 11:02 AM #

    Alvin Cummins January 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM #

    @Violet….
    Correction. “Tief from tief mek God laugh” @

    What is the meaning of this ?, Be clear so we all know and how to reply,

    Any ways We met her at the land registry , and We asked her about it and the Bitch lied to Our faces , When i show her the paper work in waiting room with witness she shut down , She is at that time the Chief Legal Office for NHC . 2004-12-07 dated.
    Land tax number 59/11/09/002/3

    She have the Vendor as The Crown and the Purchaser as NHC ,,, Who did they pay when we have the deed?

    Keep talking Alvin and we will keep Posting , Free-Smart of Information and not freedumb of the DBLP.

    Like

  7. Amused January 25, 2016 at 1:04 PM #

    @flyonthewal. My recollections on Hoyos’ reportage differs from yours. My distinct recollection is that Hoyos’ reporting both form his own Broad Street Journal and for the Nation was slanted towards Mrs Knox. Knowing some of the eminent counsel involved (both Bajan and English) before the Privy Council, I was surprised by Hoyos’ reports from the Privy Council that certainly seemed to predict Mrs Knox’s victory, when my learned friends turned out to be correct in their predictions and Hoyos wrong. But there again, Hoyos is not a lawyer and, in appearing to predict an outcome, not much of a journalist either. So I beg to differ with you that Hoyos has the capability to get his head around this matter, as it seems to me that the only new outlet capable of doing that is this one, which is a reflection on the dearth of capable journalists in Barbados and the complete absence of same in the traditional media.

    You say that this is a complex case and I would agree with you that it has become so. It is, however, my opinion that it is a simple case that has been deliberately complicated. A Barbados-registered corporation with assets only in Barbados and the shareholders, all Bajans, want to sell their shares to another Barbados-registered corporation. Knox, a Bajan and Barbados resident (at all material times) is the sole hold-out and claims a right of first refusal and sues in Barbados to enforce same and loses all the way up to the Privy Council. That should be end of story. BUT Knox claims that she has sold or transferred her shares and that Allard has control of them and Allard claims that he has sold a part of his interest in these shares to Canadian Best (for $10). But there is a finding of fact by a Barbados judge that Knox’s transfer was fraudulent, so Allard and Best could not have acquired any interest in the shares. Undeterred, Best, as a front for Knox, forum-shops the matter to Ontario, but this action fails and Ontario denies jurisdiction. Best is jailed for contempt of court – and only the court has the right to motor such a matter, not anyone else. But, Best sues again on the basis of his imprisonment for contempt, but in fact as a cover to try to re-litigate a case he had already lost in Ontario. The man must really need his $10 back and by rights he should sue Allard for it and Allard should sue Knox. But Best sues others against whom he lost before. Meanwhile in Miami, Knox’s Florida “Trust” (Knox has immigrated to Florida) again sues all and sundry on essentially the same matters that the Barbados courts and the Privy Council have ruled on – and she loses again.

    With the deepest respect, therefore, I suggest to you that this is not a complicated case at all. What it is is, as the Ontario courts have suggested, a deliberate attempt to cause financial hardship to Barbados and certain of its citizens and the costs to Knox and Allard must be astronomical, which means that it is motivated, not by sound business principles, but by revenge.

    I have to seriously wonder what a win in Ontario for Best would have accomplished as there is not, so far as I know, any existing mechanism for the enforcement of an Ontario court order in Barbados. Therefore, I repeat that the ONLY motive has to be revenge by costing Barbados in general and certain of its citizens in particular, money. But it appears to have cost Knox’s backer far more than it has us and ours. What a waste.

    @David. Good job.

    Like

  8. David January 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM #

    The average Bajan (includes middle class) appear to lack the understanding in a matter like this one. If it was a rape case or a person who was shot, no problem.

    Like

  9. Vincent Haynes January 25, 2016 at 1:42 PM #

    David January 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM #

    The lack of interest stems from the perception that this is a matter between the classes i.e. political class the buyer,the local upper class the seller and the overseas upper class running interference for another local upper class.

    Cockroach has no right at fowl cock dance……an old bajan anology for this.

    That land should have been used whilst awaiting judgement.

    Like

  10. Violet C Beckles January 25, 2016 at 2:12 PM #

    Amused January 25, 2016 at 1:04 PM # All dealing with land sold to people overseas in Barbados is Fraud, That is why things can NOT work out for them in and out of court, NONE have CLEAR TITLES, CROOKS CROOKING CROOKS, AND THEN WANT THE COURT TO MAKE IT GOOD, IT CAN HAPPEN WHEN LAW IS APPLIED AND FRAUD.

    Like

  11. flyonthewall January 25, 2016 at 2:35 PM #

    @Amused
    Thanks for your clarification. I get the sense that you followed it pretty closely. Allard comes from a very wealthy Canadian family from somewhere out west — Calgary or Edmonton I believe. A lot of money to spend. He is extremely vindictive: based on what he has tried to do you might even say unbalanced. Look at the long list of people in Barbados he sued. I have been told — you know how it goes — that he supported Mrs Knox on the understanding that he would be rewarded for his trouble with a beach-front property in Maxwell Gap known as Spion Kop; said property belonging to the Deane family. Metaphorically speaking, Allard, on leaving Barbados, pissed in our well and shat on our doorstep. It’s a shame the government cannot find some way of taking Graeme Hall away from him. It is a wonderful place and needs to be cherished.

    Like

  12. Violet C Beckles January 25, 2016 at 3:24 PM #

    Wealth is only buying time in the courts and one or both side still making money a part of Nasty business all the way around , Acting out their lives,Being put in the NEWS as if what they are doing is NEWS, Same old games being played on the public. All of them in the same class , Nasty Fraud Business Class,

    Like

  13. David January 25, 2016 at 3:40 PM #

    Taking Graeme Hall Sanctuary out of the ‘spots’ Bajans and visitors are able to visit was wicked. And this has nothing to do with the environmental impact.

    Like

  14. David January 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM #

    BU also recalls sending links to Kaymar Jordan that she never acted on. Given some of the issues they report one, a legal matter such as this one that involves a large tract of land, this is news.

    Like

  15. NorthernObserver January 25, 2016 at 10:25 PM #

    I think Spion Kop is actually Spy and Cock

    Like

  16. Hants January 26, 2016 at 12:05 AM #

    Graeme Hall swamp would be a good location for a brackish water desalination plant.

    Like

  17. NorthernObserver January 26, 2016 at 12:47 AM #

    I stand corrected it is Spion Kop,

    Like

  18. Amused January 26, 2016 at 7:27 AM #

    @flyonthewall. It is some years since I had sight of the pleadings and exhibits in this case (the one that went to the Privy Council) but I certainly remember that there were documents filed that evidenced that Allard wanted to obtain that beach property at Maxwell Coast Road that used to be the Banana Boat nightclub and I do believe the name of the property was Spion Kop. I seem to recall thinking at the time that Allard was looking for a “steal” there, given the price he was offering. My view on Allard is the same as yours.

    Like

  19. NorthernObserver January 26, 2016 at 5:23 PM #

    Isn’t this largely an “internal family issue”, which is dependent upon legal documents from the initial incorporation of Kingsland? Those will spell out what is needed to effect a sale? Does the corporation require a simple majority 50+1% to sell, or some other majority or 100%. And what rights do dissenting shareholders have if dissent is permitted.
    Unless Mrs.Knox has proof, some benefit was accruing to at least one Kingsland shareholder beyond the confines of the sale, the agreed price is the sale price for financial purposes.

    Like

  20. David January 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM #

    @NorthernObserver

    The fact that it involves the ownership of such a large tract of land and hints to manipulation by outside players does this not count?

    On 26 January 2016 at 21:23, Barbados Underground wrote:

    >

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: