Wilfred M. Smith wins Round 1 against Gov’t in court
Mr Smith’s son, young Wilfred M. Smith, an indigenous Virgin Islander, returned home a few years ago after living aboard to make his contribution to his homeland.
One of his many dreams was to establish a sports bar with a drive-through 24-hour restaurant, located on his land in Slaney, on the main island of Tortola.
History of project
Permission was granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, the Government Agency that approves new buildings, in September 2013 and work, including cutting the foundation and construction, began on his multi-million dollar private project in 2014.
However, in 2015, the Government issued a stop notice in a letter dated October 29, 2015 over the issue of Easement, saying that access through an old public road must be maintained.
Mr Smith argued that it is his land and he had no objections giving another access through the bottom road side, but that the person who had now bought property near his land and needed the access to it must at least pay him something to traverse his property.
Mr Smith said the access through the land in complying with the land purchase Easement requirements were already established from the top; however, the Government now wanted him to give new access from the bottom.
See you in court- Smith
In 2016, Mr Smith took the Government to court as construction on his 24-hour drive through restaurant and sports bar was well underway and was at the stage of the current building, after investing approximately three hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($380,000) of his own money, according to him.
In February 2016, the Government issued a go ahead with the construction; however, they imposed a laundry list of new conditions, which included that “care must be taken to minimise water and wind erosion of the topsoil. Erosion and sediment control measures (to include silt fences) must be implemented throughout the site during construction.”
The Government, who he took to court over the stop order, asked the court via the Attorney General to throw-out or strikeout Mr Smith’s case and claimed that he had no case and “his court action was an abuse of the process.”
The Government in their submission contends that Section 66 of the Physical Planning Act provides a compulsory mechanism with timelines by which grievances should be addressed.
However, Mr Smith’s lawyers from Dancia Penn & Co argued that permission was granted to develop as he requested in his application and that he was taking court action seeking damages in a claim of negligence.
In March of this year, before a High Court Judge, Mr Smith won the first portion of his case where the court ruled that the application by the Government to strike out the claim was refused. In other words, the Government has a case to answer in regard to Mr Smith’s claim of financial loss due to the stop notice, which government was even claiming was not really a stop notice.
It also gave the Crown an extension of time to file a defense within 21 days and listed the matter for case management. According to information, the Crown failed to meet the deadline, but instead sought leave to appeal the Court’s refusal to strike out the claim.
Government has no case? In Default
However, Mr Smith’s lawyers have made it clear to the court that the Attorney General has failed to comply within the prescribed time with all the court orders and has not filed a defense to the claim or any part of it put forward by Mr Smith, even within the extension granted by the court.
Additionally, Dancia Penn & Co argued in a letter dated June 16, 2017 that the Government has not shown that it has a real prospect of refuting Mr Smith’s claim, therefore in these circumstances, her client is entitled to his judgment and has submitted documents for a Judgment in Default.
It is believed that Mr Smith is claiming close to $3M in financial losses due to the stop order.
The National Democratic Party (NDP) Government, since 2011, has paid out close to some $200M in claims to the public for blatant violation of their rights and the law.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
41 Responses to “Wilfred M. Smith wins Round 1 against Gov’t in court”
Unfortunately, many are not.
More unfortunately, many of those that are not fit for purpose come from the BVI and have been appointed/promoted over and above ability because of nationality.
Even more unfortunately, some of those that are not fit for purpose have been imported from overseas.
We need to fire or lay off civil servants that are not fit for purpose.
And just out of curiosity, his land or not- has he talked to his neighbours about traveling noise on 24/7 bar? The government is stupid in that it constantly is ignoring its own written laws. But because of that, it allows for bad planning and bad agreements.
e de>>>>>> i responsible for this mess he and his wife is two malacious people
C'mon you all it's always about the dollar.