Vincentian lawyer admits paragraph in affidavit untrue

A Vincentian lawyer on Tuesday admitted to the High Court of England and Wales that an affidavit he submitted in a British court matter contains a paragraph that is untrue.

During a two-day interrogation, Samuel Commissiong, the solicitor and secretary for Buccament Bay Resort Limited and Harlequin Property SVG, told the court that while it was his signature on the affidavit, he had suspicions {{more}}about the final paragraph of the document.

Commissiong made the admission at a sitting of the Court in Kingstown, where a US$70 million claim for professional negligence, brought by Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd and Harlequin Hotels and Resorts Ltd against their former accountants and auditors Wilkins Kennedy, was being heard.

The first week of the claim was heard in London, but week two took place here in St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), home of a central feature of the claim: Harlequin’s Buccament Bay Resort.

Defence lawyer Justin Fenwick had drawn Commissiong’s attention to the paragraph in question when he made the admission.

Presiding judge Peter Coulson inquired of Commissiong what were his suspicions, to which the local attorney replied softly, “I wonder if the document…”

“You wonder what?” Coulson questioned.

Commissiong continued, “… was tampered with.”

Fenwick then intervened, asking Commissiong what about the paragraph makes him suspicious.

The Vincentian lawyer said the contents of the paragraph are untrue and he would not have produced the document if he had known it was not true.

Fenwick asked Commissiong if he had not been disciplined before in SVG for producing a document that untrue.

“Yes,” Commissiong replied, adding however, that it was under different circumstances.

In January 2002, Commissiong was ordered by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) to pay EC$5,000 in 30 days, plus costs, for conduct which they found to be “clearly improper”.

Commissiong had sent to a client in Europe, a document which carried the registrar’s stamp and a signature which resembled that of then acting registrar of the High Court, Judith Jones-Morgan. However, when the document was brought to the registrar’s attention, Jones-Morgan disclaimed its authenticity.

Commissiong claimed at the time that the document was a “sample of a court order” and admitted to sending the document to a colleague in Europe, accompanied by a cover letter.

The justices of the ECSC ruled that while they found Commissiong’s conduct to be “clearly improper”, it was not such gross misconduct as would justify him being suspended or being struck off the roll, as there was there was “no intention on the part of the solicitor that the document should be acted upon”.

On Tuesday, when Commissiong voiced his doubts about the contents of his affidavit, he had been giving evidence about the ownership of parcels of lands on which some sections of the Buccament Bay Resort were built.

The lawyer said that in 2011, he was involved in drafting a document for businessman Bernard Punnett to sell a part of the lands for EC$5 million, but the document did not give permission to build on the lands.

According to Commissiong, the lands were co-owned by Punnett’s sister and therefore, he could not give permission to Harlequin to build on them unless she agreed.

However, it was revealed in court that Commissiong did not include this fact in his affidavit, which had been sworn to as part of the evidence to discharge an injunction in Britain to freeze assets against Harlequin for whom he works.

Fenwick, lawyer for Wilkins Kennedy, questioned why Commissiong had submitted that Harlequin had paid in full for the land when this was not the case.

Commissiong, however, disclosed that Punnett owned other parcels of land for which he did not share ownership with his sister and could trade with her for other properties.

He said he submitted that Harlequin had paid in full because that is what he was told by Punnett in discussions sometime between 2010 and 2011, adding that he does not know if to date, the lands have been paid for in full.

Fenwick noted that documents indicated that the lands were not paid for and asked Commissiong again, why did he tell the British court that they were.

Commissiong replied that he did not know otherwise.

According to evidence presented in court, the apartments that form part of the resort were being constructed on lands owned by the Punnetts, but Commissiong said in his affidavit that none of the resort’s properties were on the Punnetts’ land.

Commissiong said he has acted for Dave Ames, owner of Harlequin Property SVG since 2005 in acquiring property in SVG, obtaining planning permission for various activities and trying to advise him on the laws of SVG.

The lawyer added that he was also involved in receiving money from Harlequin and paying it out when instructed to by Ames.

He said the money was principally for the sale of land, other purchases for the company and paying people to do things.

The lawyer added that it is not the rule in SVG that solicitors must keep ledgers of a client’s money and that the account to which Harlequin sent money was in his name and he was the sole signatory and that he kept records in receipt form.

He said he does not get involved in sales, to which Fenwick commented that Commissiong is the secretary of a business, but does not know their business.

“I do not get involved in that,” Commissiong reiterated.

On Wednesday, Commissiong said that he knew Punnett’s sister did not agree to sell the land, based on the agreement that had been proposed.

Justice Coulson, however, said the document Commissiong submitted did not say intention to buy; it said that the land was bought.

The judge added that although he doesn’t know anything about the case, he knows that Commissiong’s submission was untrue and questioned if the document was based on what Commissiong was told by Ames.

One of the main players in the case that Harlequin has brought against Wilkins Kennedy is Padraig “Paudie” O’Halloran, formerly of ICE Group, which was Harlequin’s contractor for the Buccament Bay Resort. According to Harlequin, the contractor was recommended by Martin MacDonald, who is a partner of Wilkins Kennedy and Harlequin’s appointed accountant/representative from 2006 to 2010. MacDonald is another main player in the case. The third principal defendant in the case is Jeremy Newman, a former Wilkins Kennedy senior manager, who worked for O’Halloran and ICE Group from 2009.

Harlequin said by June 2010, it discovered that the hotel would not open on time and alleges that this is because O’Halloran had stolen tens of millions of dollars from the development, with Jeremy Newman’s assistance.

They also allege that MacDonald had worked with O’Halloran at a time when he was aware that the project would never be delivered in time.

The one-week portion of trial in Kingstown concluded yesterday. Hearing in the matter continues in London from next week. (AS)