Court rules against State

A near 20-year-old court battle between Government and Parsons’ Pest Control over the acquisition of land was brought to the verge of conclusion Friday when the High Court ordered the Freundel Stuart administration to pay over $80,000 in damages.

The issue dates back to 1998 when Government compulsorily acquired 4,298.35 square metres of privately-owned land at Foster Lodge, St George for housing development.

Parsons’ Pest Control successfully challenged the administration and a series of applications over the years ended in the Number 5 Supreme Court Friday with Madame Justice Jacqueline Cornelius ordering the State to pay $41,032.05 in damages for failed acquisition and $43,784.44 in disturbance costs for dispossessing the landowner of his property.

This figure does not include interest, which is still to be assessed or agreed.

Deputy Solicitor General Donna Brathwaite applied for a stay of payment, which is traditionally a period of five to six weeks allowed for appeal.

After the State had begun a battle to acquire a strip of land along the front of the landscaped grounds in St George, spanning both sides of the access road to the business, Parsons’ Pest Control wrote the Permanent Secretary in the Division of Housing on June 30, 1998 refusing consent on the grounds that the land was not designated in any approved development plan or proposal for such purposes.

On December 17, 1998 Government officially acquired the property, but on March 28, 2001, the applicant successfully sued the State with the High Court quashing the acquisition.

The company brought a successful action for judicial review in 1999 and named the Chief Town Planner as the first respondent, the Chief Surveyor as the second, the Attorney General as the third, the Prime Minister and Minister responsible for Town Planning as the fourth and the Minister of Housing and Lands, the fifth. 

8 Responses to Court rules against State

  1. Zeus November 26, 2016 at 4:37 am

    Unbelievable simply unbelievable ….why was the names of the persons holding the offices of minister of housing and the attorney general not mentioned in the article so it could have been consistent with naming the prime minister ….was the court nor referring to offices because as far as I can recollect Mr Stuart was never prime minister on any of the dates mentioned in this article …BT you can do better than this

    • Haskell Murray November 26, 2016 at 9:14 pm

      Idiot it is not the person,it is the office , because governments change constantly ,that is why no names are mentioned

  2. harry turnover November 26, 2016 at 6:41 am

    Of course BT can do better.Poor compiling from this reporter again.

  3. Adrian November 26, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    I’d the writer suggesting that this fine is payable only by the current administration? If by chance there is a chance in the administration, will this fine still be payable by Government?

    • Haskell Murray November 26, 2016 at 9:16 pm


  4. Big Brown November 27, 2016 at 12:31 am

    Government is a continuum.

  5. Carson C Cadogan November 27, 2016 at 6:05 am


    the year 1998

    Govt. in office at that time, THE BARBADOS LABOUR PARTY. Let that sink in.

    Most of the cases being brought are from the BLP time. The names are all known but Barbados today refuses to publish them. They dont want to cause any discomfort to the Barbados Labour Party.

    But of course Emmanuel will not point that out. Talk about fair and balanced reporting, this news media is just dripping with it.

  6. Sherlock Holmes. November 27, 2016 at 8:41 am

    Media houses take note with what is happening to the MSM in the USA a word to the wise.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *