[2024] SC (Bda) 72 Civ. (9 December 2024) In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

CIVIL JURISDICTION

2023: No. 347

BETWEEN:

GAYLE ANN VENTURES

Plaintiff - and -

CLARIEN BANK LIMITED

First Defendant

ALEXANDRA N WHEATLEY

Second Defendant

GEOFFREY BELL

Third Defendant

RULING

Date of Hearing and Rulings: 5, 6 December 2024 Appearances: Plaintiff Gayle Ventures in Person (by Zoom) with her McKenzie Friend Ms. LeYoni Junos RULING of Mussenden CJ

1. These two Rulings were issued in Chambers and are now set out in writing. 5 December 2024

2. Having heard the submissions in the ex parte application for leave to appeal on four grounds, I ruled as follows: a. Ms. Ventures, by her McKenzie Friend Ms. Junos, advanced four grounds of appeal as set out in her written submissions. These arise from my Ruling dated 13August 2024 in which I declined to grant the recusal application. b. In my view Grounds 1 and 2 are arguable as they raise: (i) the issue of bias as it related to the relationship between myself and Mrs. Wheatley who is the substantive Registrar but is now an acting Judge on a temporary basis; and (ii) the issue where a complaint has been lodged against me by Ms. Ventures. c. In respect of Grounds 3 and 4, I am of the view that those grounds are not arguable to go before the Court of Appeal. d. e. Therefore, I am satisfied to grant leave to appeal on Grounds 1 and 2. I refuse leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 3 and 4.

3. After the hearing I realised that I had omitted to follow the procedure set down in Order 2 rule 3(c) in the Rules of the Court of Appeal. I caused Ms. Ventures to be given notice to appear the next day 6 December 2024 with a reference to the omission. 6 December 2024

4. Mrs. Ventures appeared (by zoom) with her Mckenzie Fiend Ms. Junos. I explained my omission from the previous day. Ms. Junos acknowledged the omission. She requested to make an application to not proceed with an inter partes hearing on the basis of undue hardship. Having heard the submissions on undue hardship, I ruled as follows: a. I have considered the undue hardship submissions. I am not satisfied that in the normal course of proceedings that the timelines can be considered to be extraordinary in delay. Whilst I understand that the proceedings may cause the Plaintiff anxiety, that is likely the case for all parties in litigation. b. I refuse the application for undue hardship. 2

c. d. e. I direct that the proceedings be served on the parties affected pursuant to Order 2 rule 3(c) so that there will be an inter partes hearing. It will be the aim of the court to deal with the matter on an expedited basis. The Order I made yesterday to grant leave to appeal is withdrawn as it was made in error. Dated 6 December 2024 ______________________________ LARRY MUSSENDEN CHIEF JUSTICE 3