CAY HILL--One day after she was sworn in as interim Minister of Public Health, Labour and Social Affairs VSA on Thursday, November 28, Pamela Gordon-Carty deposited an unsecured cheque on the third-party account of BZSE Attorneys at Law in Cay Hill. According to BZSE lawyer Jelmer Snow, the payment was in connection with a ruling by the Joint Court of Justice of November 15, 2019, in which Gordon-Carty was ordered to pay a considerable amount in legal fees.
“Her lawyer subsequently announced that his client would pay voluntarily, and we waited for that. The lady in question then deposited a cheque on our third-party account at Windward Islands Bank (WIB) on November 29, 2019, but afterwards it turned out that the cheque had bounced,” Snow explained.
“That cost us another US $108.32, and I hear nothing from her lawyer anymore. I think this is also called a ‘scam’, and that of our Minister of Public Health, Labour and Social Affairs.”
Master Accounting Service (MAS) accountant and entrepreneur Gordon-Carty was ordered by the Court of Appeals to pay NAf. 6,272.50 in legal fees in connection with the purchase of real estate which was cancelled due to difficulties in obtaining adequate financing.
In an agreement signed between parties on December 5, 2015, it was stated that the purchase option would expire and a temporary lease agreement would end if MAS had not exercised the option in writing on the final date of June 5, 2016, and the purchase price had not been deposited in the notary’s third-party account.
Failure to comply led the property’s heirs to terminate the lease agreement, which the Joint Court considered a reasonable, fair and “not unacceptable” decision.
The fact that MAS had remained in the house during a “grace period” and subsequently had refused to leave had not created a new or extended lease agreement, according to the Court, which also established that after July 2016 MAS had declined to pay any rent.
In the meantime, the bank had proceeded with the execution of an auction and did not want to honour MAS’ offer of a private sale. The Court said it was unclear why MAS had not made a bid during the auction to secure the house and investments made in the property.
“It may be sour for MAS that she sees the envisaged house and possibly her investments go to waste, but she ultimately owes it to herself by entering into a – particularly tight – agreement without being sure that she would be able to meet the set conditions in a timely manner,” the Court stated in the verdict.
