Agard’s case dismissed

The High Court has dismissed the lawsuit brought by Member of Parliament for Christ Church West Dr Maria Agard, challenging her dismissal from the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) two years ago.

Agard, who now sits in Parliament as an independent, had asked the court to rule on the constitutionality of her dismissal on November 22, 2015 after she openly challenged Mia Mottley’s leadership of the Opposition party.

She had also asked the court to rule on what her attorney claimed were “flagrant breaches of the rules of natural justice”, given that her “accusers turned out to be the jury, judge and everybody else associated with inflicting the punishment” that was her dismissal.

In striking out her application, Justice Olson Alleyne said Agard, who was not in court today, was suing the wrong parties, on the wrong form and in the wrong way.

Mottley, who was on hand for the judgment, said it was an unfortunate situation but she was glad that it was now behind them.

However, Agard’s attorney Hal Gollop, QC, said he would have to confer with his client to see whether she was willing to re-file the case.

 

68 Responses to Agard’s case dismissed

  1. Joan Crawford
    Joan Crawford December 29, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Waste of time go home and relax and stop making the lawyer bank account bigger

    Reply
  2. milli watt December 29, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    how do you sue the wrong person on the wrong form in the wrong way………….talking to you HAL

    Reply
  3. Joy Waldron
    Joy Waldron December 29, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    Smhh… I hope he doing case for free….

    Reply
  4. Ziggy Blessed
    Ziggy Blessed December 29, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Clearly he ain’t half the lawyer he is believed to be ……I would be embarrassed!! Maria stop wasting time and go and enjoy life…….

    Reply
    • Crystalene Alexander
      Crystalene Alexander December 29, 2017 at 8:27 pm

      I said that from the time he dealt with that Alexandra principal ordeal.

      Reply
  5. Robin Catwell
    Robin Catwell December 29, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    So as her lawyer he don’t know wat is the right forms. Is he a Q.C too

    Reply
    • Romeld December 29, 2017 at 2:23 pm

      My sentiments exactly and that is so sad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
  6. Arthur Collymore
    Arthur Collymore December 29, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    Never a case to be answered. Every attempt to reconcile your relationship with the party’s leadership was frustrated by you. Why fight to remain in an organisation if you’re so dead set against it’s leadership? You could have chosen to walk away.

    Reply
    • Romeld December 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm

      true that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was always all about embarrassing Ms. Mottley.

      Reply
    • Rubertha Blackman
      Rubertha Blackman December 29, 2017 at 5:04 pm

      Very true.

      Reply
  7. Donild Trimp December 29, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Something is wrong with Hal, seriously —-

    My first year students would not make such a mistake.

    Ok Hal, I will admit your case was dismissed on a technicality but come on man, for an attorney with so much experience ——-“suing the wrong parties, on the wrong form and in the wrong way”?

    Time for you to retire Hal and enjoy your waning years with some sun, surf and sand.

    Reply
  8. Arthur Collymore
    Arthur Collymore December 29, 2017 at 1:06 pm

    And Gallop got talk for Mia. Gallop/Stuart will lose every battle against Mia.

    Reply
  9. Wendy Knight
    Wendy Knight December 29, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    I am really disheartened!!! How I possibly pay a lawyer, and a QC at that, to file a case for me and he uses the wrong form. Maria he should refund you the fees you paid. You were targeting the wrong people!!! The people that you thought were against you were not!!!! Enjoy the ride!!

    Reply
  10. Kim A. Jones
    Kim A. Jones December 29, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Oooooooooooo

    Reply
  11. Anthony Blackman
    Anthony Blackman December 29, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    ….was suing the wrong parties, on the wrong form and in the wrong way…. wow! And these are the legal elites keeping noise about who is qualified to practice law and cannot get a simple filing right?!

    Reply
  12. luther thorne December 29, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    Man ÷557 losing cases all aro0und. He needs to get back to “centre”

    Reply
  13. Stanton Peace
    Stanton Peace December 29, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    this is certainly a case of bad legal advice.

    Reply
  14. Helicopter(8P) December 29, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    I am a military veteran observing or reading this type of attitude it makes military law superior in every form and fashion to what’s practiced at state.

    Reply
  15. Stanton Peace
    Stanton Peace December 29, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    The lawyer’s work was so poorly done that he ought to return the client’s money.

    Reply
    • Sonia Seale
      Sonia Seale December 29, 2017 at 6:56 pm

      The tables should be turned on him now for messing up.

      Reply
    • Randolph December 29, 2017 at 8:07 pm

      He couldn’t represent me if he was the only lawyer in B’dos.

      Reply
  16. gsmiley December 29, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    Poor girl. She needed a proper lawyer.

    Reply
  17. Joey St
    Joey St December 29, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    This is very strange Justice Alleyne if Dr Agard was suing the wrong parties, on the wrong form and in the wrong way, why did it took so long (over 2 years) to make a decision?…i don’t get it.

    Reply
    • milli watt December 29, 2017 at 4:25 pm

      @ Joey St ahhhhhhhhhh you got a point though

      Reply
    • hcalndre December 29, 2017 at 9:20 pm

      @Joey St; The judge should have called the attorney and notify him that he is using the wrong form and accusing the wrong people? is this a kangaroo court you want?

      Reply
  18. Iteebah Cadogan
    Iteebah Cadogan December 29, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    Wanna reallly think hal ain knw wah he doingggg hmmm

    Reply
  19. Cheryl Cumberbatch
    Cheryl Cumberbatch December 29, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Has this man ever won a case? Just curious.

    Reply
  20. Adrian Hinds December 29, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    I’m with you Joey St This is Barbados and political party affiliations run deep in addition to the national pasttime of people telling others what to do base on personal opinions and relations. This ruling as reported makes no sense.

    Reply
  21. Oriel Johnson
    Oriel Johnson December 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Since Agard was the MP,,,how many Xmas parties did she had,,see if QC can get that one right

    Reply
  22. Oriel Johnson
    Oriel Johnson December 29, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    Stop picking on the QC,,,wasent Lynette Eastmond Agard lawyer too?????

    Reply
  23. Ãmen Hotep
    Ãmen Hotep December 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    One fraternal order

    Reply
  24. Santini More
    Santini More December 29, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    This must have been one of DEM pro bono cases, right Mr. Gollop?

    Reply
  25. Donild Trimp December 29, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    @ Adrian Hinds –
    “This ruling as reported makes no sense”.

    Explain why the ruling makes no sense?

    You must follow the “Rules of Civil Procedure” and file the correct form otherwise the Judge will dismiss your motion.

    Would you file a “Notice of Action” on a “Notice of intent to Defend” form?

    Explain why the ruling of the learned Judge makes no sense Mr. smarty pants Adrian Hinds.

    Reply
  26. Sonia Romain
    Sonia Romain December 29, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Well…..

    Reply
  27. Alphonso Gittens December 29, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Some lawyers don’t like to do any work but we must not forget the Leader of UPP, who is a lawyer was also involved as a legal representative for Ms. Agard. Can’t fill the right cause of action, on the right forms and in the right way but want a chance to be Prime Minister? Not here.

    Reply
  28. hcalndre December 29, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    Maria Agard knows that there`s plenty free, easy money in politics. With 50 lawyers being admitted to the Barbados bar every year the likes of Hal Gollop is what you get.

    Reply
  29. Wayne P Hoyte
    Wayne P Hoyte December 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Grey and white dont means bright. Moving along

    Reply
  30. Ali Baba
    Ali Baba December 29, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    P K ASKING YA IF YA PAY UR BAR FEES, APPARENTLY DE CJ DIDN’T WANT TO HEAR YA…….TO U MARIA YA LOSS DE CASE, YA SEAT NEXT…….AS SINKLIAR SAID WE BE HAPPY TO HAVE YA, JUST HAVE TO ABIDE WID DE RULES HAHHAHAHAHAHHA

    Reply
    • Rubertha Blackman
      Rubertha Blackman December 29, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      Elite rules for elite people smh

      Reply
    • Ali Baba
      Ali Baba December 29, 2017 at 5:42 pm

      Rubertha Blackman HAHAHAHA YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT

      Reply
  31. concern citizen December 29, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    is this the same hall gollop that was questioning Mia legal standing to practice law in Barbados. shame on you. may be you is the one want inveśigating. just asking.

    Reply
  32. Betty Culpepper
    Betty Culpepper December 29, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    Ha ha ha tek that

    Reply
  33. Bajan voter December 29, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Solution Barbados need good candidate like you.

    Reply
  34. Sisleen Greene December 29, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Wayne Hoyte it is obvious that you do understand the paying of fees, instead of makibg such a stupid statement you should do your research first.
    The wood work teacher turn Q.C only about feathering his nest with as much free cash as possible that he is collecting these days, before his cohorts lose power.
    He is also training his son well too, they know how to charge big and lose big.

    Reply
  35. The Truth December 29, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    HG was on the tribunal which won a couple labour dismissal cases. That is why she MA felt comfortable with her choice of a lawyer for this case. FYI He has come out and said that he is a ‘political animal’. He needs to retire and relax in his white mansion in St. Philip watching Man-U matches. He is die hard United fan. Drat…I does back them too.

    Reply
  36. Carson C. Cadogan December 29, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    “”PRESS RELEASE
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    December 29, 2017
    Dr. Agard M.P. Can Still Have Her Day in Court
    On December 29, 2017 the Claim filed by Dr. Maria Agard, Member of Parliament for Christ Church West against Mia Mottley and Jerome Walcott of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) was struck out because of procedural errors (CV1753/2015- M. Agard v M. Mottley and J. Walcott).
    Dr. Agard was seeking the court’s assistance in obtaining natural justice with respect to her expulsion from the Barbados Labour Party. The Claim was filed on December 11, 2015 in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Barbados and the matter heard on April 7, 2016. On that date, it was adjourned for a decision on the technical objections raised by the Defendants, which were upheld.
    The striking out of the Claim on grounds of procedural error still leaves to be decided the question of whether her expulsion from the Barbados Labour Party was in breach of Natural Justice.
    Dr. the Honourable Justice Olson Alleyne in his comprehensive judgement pointed out clearly, that this action would not be prejudicial to either party. Dr. Alleyne J stated in his judgment at Page 49:
    “Striking out the claim would not deprive the claimant of her access to the Court or bestow any windfall on the defendants. The claimant may make a fresh start with these procedural flaws behind her.”
    Dr. Agard thanks the Judge for his diligence in attending to the matters before him and is prepared to give her full consideration to his suggestion about resubmittingher Claim in order to pursue her quest for justice. However, she also noted that she now clearly understands how difficult it is for individuals of the working class to pursue matters of natural justice in Barbados because of the costs attached to such proceedings.
    She opined that a just society should devise a means of lowering these costs so access to justice would not be a privilege but a right, especially with regard to addressing the grievous acts of abuse by figures in authority.
    Dr. Agard is still of a strong conviction that a severe and wilful injustice was meted out to her by the leadership of the Barbados Labour Party. In the circumstances she would take into account the option handed to her by the learned High Court Justice, take advice from her Counsel, as well as discuss the matter with her family before making any decisions on the future of this matter.

    Dr. Maria Agard
    Independent Parliamentary Representative for the Constituency for Christ Church West””

    Reply
    • hcalndre December 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm

      @Sisleen Greene; in Barbados parlance, he was or is a carpenter, I figure he had a back ground in something of that sort.

      Reply
    • hcalndre December 29, 2017 at 9:47 pm

      @Carson C Cadogan; Miss. Agard has a profession, why don`t she got on with what she`s qualified to do and don`t become a disgruntled loser.

      Reply
  37. Millicent Small December 29, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    [117] In considering this matter, I have taken account also that the claimant has had a second bite at the proverbial cherry. She filed an amended FDCF, albeit without leave. I have heard no submissions on it but the record speaks for itself. That document was filed to remedy admitted defects in the FDCF. However, as Counsel for the defendants submitted, it maintains many of the flaws that characterised the original document. It remains the wrong mode of commencement; it does not set out a short description of the nature of the claim; it does not state in its body the capacity in which the defendants are sued; it contains the same internal headings that are apt to confuse; and it reproduces an incoherent paragraph already the subject of complaint. Additionally, it invites unguided references to the claimant’s affidavit for some of its intended contents.
    [118] It is therefore pointless for this Court to contemplate allowing the amended FDCF to stand. In any event, I could make no such determination without hearing the parties further but it seems to me that in light of what I have said about the references to the affidavit and the repeat of errors, the document cannot be maintained without some amendment. It would therefore be a waste of time and expense to leave it for further consideration. It was filed without leave and it ought to be struck out.
    48
    [119] I have considered whether I should make a compendious order striking out the affidavit; staying the proceedings unless and until a CPR 21 order is obtained; and providing that the claim be struck out if the claimant failed to make the CPR 21 application and, if successful, file an amended claim form within specified times. In such an order, I would also have to make provision for the proceedings to continue as if they had been commenced by a Form 1.
    [120] I do not think that the interest of the administration of justice would be served by such an order. The FDCF requires a major overhaul to bring it into line with the requirements of the CPR. The breaches are substantial and substantial amendments are required to give it the form and substance necessary to make it legally acceptable. Conjoined with the requirement for the CPR 21 order, the taking of corrective measures by the claimant would be tantamount to starting over.
    [121] Striking out the claim would not deprive the claimant of her access to the Court or bestow any windfall on the defendants. The claimant may make a fresh start with these procedural flaws behind her. This seems to me to be more efficient than the untidy alternative considered above which would do nothing to discourage sloppiness or encourage careful adherence to the CPR.
    49

    Reply
  38. Millicent Small December 29, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    DISPOSAL

    [122] For these reasons, therefore, I have determined that the applications of both defendants ought to succeed, and the FDCF, the claimant’s affidavit and the amended FDCF be struck out. I will make orders accordingly and hear the parties on the issue of costs.

    OLSON DeC ALLEYNE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

    Reply
  39. janette reifer December 29, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    Mr Gollop. It is time you stop the galloping about Ms. Mottley because you don’t want anything with her.
    Even the Court realise you all are jokers.

    Reply
  40. Kevin December 29, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    This will come back to haunt the BLP what they did to Agard.

    Reply
  41. DE December 30, 2017 at 12:24 am

    @ Kevin, and what will it do to Hal Gollop for what he has done to Agard.

    Reply
  42. archy perch December 30, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    Mia told: Watch your step. An article penned by Tim Slinger in the Sunday Sun November 8th 2015. Don’t overstep your boundaries. This is the caution to Opposition Leader, Mia Mottley from St. Andrew MP, George Payne as he commeneted on the controversy surrounding Christ Church West Mwmber of Parliament, Dr. Maria Agard. That’s how the article reads.
    Payne has warned Mottley to avoid violating the BLP’s constitution in her handling of the Agard issue, which has left the party in turmoil in recent weeks.
    He also accused the BLP leader of being disrespectful and discourteous to Agard, St.Michael North MP Ronald Toppin and himself by unilaterally cancelling last Wednesday’s meeting without notice to any of them.
    Another headline dated Tuesday November 24th, 2015. Payne Cries Foul. BLP veteran shocked by unfair expulsion of Agard.
    Written by Donna Sealy. Veteran Opposition MP George Payne has blasted the decision to expel colleague Dr. Maria Agard from the BLP as unfair, saying it has left him somewhat shocked and feeling like he was dreaming.
    I tell you Mia, watch Georgeie Porgie he and the others mentioned above pulled the rug from under your dress before, the are going to do it again, never mind the smiles and the hugs Mia. George wants to be Prime Minister too. Watch your back.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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