Search Judgments

Clear

Showing 1076–1100 of 2225 results

Case Name Date Court Jurisdiction Judge Type
His Majesty The King v A H AW Adley Duncan, Office of the Director for Public Prosecutions, instructed by Miss Cindy Clarke, Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Appellant. Jerome Lynch KC, Trott & Duncan Ltd., for the Respondents Hearing date: 13 June 2023
[2023] CA (Bda) 29 Crm 		Court of Appeal Criminal Clarke
Peirce Capital Ltd v WILLIAM PEIRCE STEWART BARBARA K STEWART REASONS FOR DECISION (in Chambers) Default Judgment-application to set aside-defence with real prospects of success-re-litigation of issues decided in New York divorce proceedings between the Defendants-undertaking by plaintiff to enforce local judgment in conformity with New York equitable distribution order Court of Appeal Civil Kawaley Reasons For Decision
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 19 of 2015 THE QUEEN v Kamal Worrell Court of Appeal Appellate Baker
The Queen v Garth Bell Court of Appeal Baker
Mexico Infrastructure Finance Llc v The Corporation Of Hamilton Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
Ruby Lightbourne-Lamb Edward Lamb v Brightside Enterprises Ltd. Gwyneth Lightbourne
[2024] CA (Bda) 9 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Clarke Judgment
Leyoni Junos (On Behalf Of The Civil Justice Advocacy Group) v The Governor Of Bermuda
[2024] CA (Bda) 4 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Smellie Approved Judgment
KEVIN WAKEFIELD SAMPSON, JR Plaintiff/Appellant v LIONEL EARLE JAMES ANDERSON First Defendant/First Respondent THE ESTATE OF NINA MAE JOELL (ALBERT JOELL, JR as Estate Representative) Second Defendant/Second Respondent THE ESTATE OF CLIFFORD WAKEFIELD SAMPSON (TYRONE LLEWLLYN SAMPSON SR as Estate Representative) Third Defendant/Third Respondent Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
David Anderson Greenidge v The Commissioner Of Police
[2024] CA (Bda) 5 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Clarke
The Queen v Charles Johnson Supreme Court Criminal Subair Williams Ruling
Michael Woodroffe v Pamela Woodroffe (Nee Collins)
[2021] CA (Bda) 4 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Clarke Approved Judgment
## Jamel Simons v FIONA MILLER (POLICE SERGEANT) **Appellant**
[2022] SC (Bda) 2 (20 January 2022) 		Supreme Court Appellate Subair Williams Judgment
Spanish Steps Holdings Ltd. v Point Investments Ltd.
[2019] SC (Bda) 55 Com (a contributory's petition) as follows: 		Supreme Court Civil Hargun Judgment
Leveck Roberts v Her Majesty The Queen Quincy Brangman Her Majesty The Queen Khyri Smith-Williams Her Majesty The Queen
[2021] CA (Bda) Crim 		Court of Appeal Criminal Clarke Approved Judgment
Jahmico Jahmah Roddy Roger Trott v The Queen Court of Appeal Clarke Judgment
THE QUEEN Appellant v Dion Cholmondeley Court of Appeal Bell Ex Tempore Judgment
The Queen v Ehbony Allen Court of Appeal Baker
Omar Davy v THE QUEEN Ms Elizabeth Christopher of the Legal Aid Office for the Applicant
[2021] CA (Bda) 5 Crim 		Court of Appeal Criminal Clarke Approved Judgment
Khyri Carlos Smith-Williams v The Queen Court of Appeal Clarke Judgment
Eston Joell v The Queen Court of Appeal Baker
Travone Saltus v The Queen
[2018] CA (Bda) 13 Crim, 23 March 2018 		Court of Appeal Clarke Judgment
The Queen v Manai Roberts Court of Appeal Bernard
Detre Ford v The Queen Court of Appeal Baker
Travone Saltus v The Queen Court of Appeal Criminal Baker
Sabian Hayward v The Queen Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
THE QUEEN Appellant/Respondent v DAMON MCROY EUGENE WELLMAN MORRIS DENISE ALBERTA MORRIS 2nd Respondent/Appellant Court of Appeal Baker
KETHYIO WHITEHURST Appellant/Respondent v THE QUEEN Respondent/Appellant Court of Appeal Baker Ex Tempore Judgment
Romano Mills v The Queen Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
Myron Adwin Piper Raymond Gerald Davis Leyoni Junos Robert G. G. Moulder v Commission Of Inquiry Into Historic Losses Of Land In Bermuda The Premier Of Bermuda And Between Commission Of Inquiry Into Historic Losses Of Land In Bermuda Myron Adwin Piper Raymond Gerald Davis Leyoni Junos Robert G. G. Moulder
[2024] CA (Bda) 6 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Clarke Approved Ruling
Denise Priscilla Trew v HSBC BANK BERMUDA LIMITED DENISE PRISCILLA TREW MOLLY WHITE STEPHEN WHITE Mr Michael Scott (Browne Scott) for the Intended Appellant Mr Dantae Williams (Marshall Diel & Myers Limited) for the Respondent Bank
[2022] CA (Bda) Civ 2 		Court of Appeal Civil Bell
Sean Desilva v Adam J Gibbons Ryan Heyrana
[2021] CA (Bda) 2 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Clarke Approved Judgment
Global Distressed Alpha Capital I Limited v CHRISTIAN MICHELSEN HERMAN WALTON LAW EDDLESTONE Gregory Banner KC and Lilla Zuill of Zuill & Co for the Appellant Graham Chapman KC, Katie Tornari of Marshall Diel & Myers Limited and Jai Pachai of Wakefield Quin Limited for the Respondents Hearing date(s): 26th January 2024 Formal hand down date: 12th November 2024
[2024] CA (Bda) 14 Civ 		Court of Appeal Civil Clarke Approved Judgment
Ak Bakri & Sons Limited Mohammed Hani Abdul Kader Bakri Al Bakri Zohair Abdul Kader Bakri Al Bakri v Asma Abdul Kader Bakri Al Bakri Faisal Abdul Kader Bakri Al Bakri Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
Constable v Constable Final Reasons Court of Appeal Clarke
East Asia Company Limited v Pt Satria Tirtatama Energindo Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
**C** Intended Appellant v **D** Intended Respondent **Before:** Baker, President Bell, JA Bernard, JA **Appearances:** Court of Appeal Baker
Noet Barnett v The Queen
[2015] CA (Bda) 33(A) Crim (30 November 2015) 		Court of Appeal Baker
Hon. Marc Bean Jp Mp v Hon. Michael Dunkley Jp Mp Court of Appeal Baker Judgment
Laep Investments Ltd v Emerging Markets Special Situations 3 Ltd Court of Appeal Baker Decision
Laep Investments Ltd v EMERGING MARKETS SPECIAL SITUATIONS 3 LTD Bell, JA Introduction 1. On 20 March 2015, we indicated that we would allow the appeal, grant a stay of the Enforcement Order (as defined in this judgment), and set aside the order to wind up the Appellant ("the Company"), and those orders ancillary to the winding up order, including orders relating to the appointment and activities of the Joint Provisional Liquidators ("the JPLs"). Mr Duncan for the Company raised a number of issues upon delivery of judgment. The principal matters were the costs of the JPLs, and whether or not our order should have been to dismiss the winding up petition, rather than set aside the order to wind up the Company. We gave liberty to apply to the trial judge in respect of both matters. In relation to the latter, we would simply comment that in circumstances where the outcome of the proceedings in Brazil cannot presently be ascertained, it seems sensible to allow for the possibility that the Respondent might ultimately prevail. We indicated that we would give our reasons in writing as quickly as possible. This we now do. 2. The dispute ultimately giving rise to this appeal goes back to a reference to arbitration submitted by the Company in Brazil in October 2010. That reference to arbitration followed a dispute as to the existence and/or extent of obligations owed by the Company to the Respondent. The transaction which led to the arbitration request arose from the restructuring of a debt owed by a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, pursuant to which the Respondent discharged a substantial debt owed by the Company and its subsidiaries. In a Ruling dated 1 April 2014 ("the Ruling") the judge at first instance, Hellman J, dismissed the Company's application for a stay of the arbitration award dated 18 March 2013 ("the Award") and held that he was in principle prepared to order that the Company be wound up, subject to hearing the parties as to the terms of such order. The judge then adjourned to hear argument, and when the matter came back before him on 4 April 2014, made an order winding up the Company. He subsequently gave a ruling on 23 April 2014 dealing with other matters relating to the appointment of JPLs, who were by that time represented before him. The Brazilian Arbitration Proceedings and the Status of the Award 3. Pursuant to the Award, the Company was ordered to pay to the Respondent a sum of approximately R$145 million, including interest and costs, an amount said by the judge in paragraph 3 of the Ruling to be equivalent to well in excess of US$73 million at then current exchange rates. On 29 April 2013, the arbitral tribunal rendered an addendum to the Award, providing that payment of the amount awarded became due immediately as of the date of the notification of the Award, presumably because there had been some contention to the contrary. 4. As the judge set out in paragraphs 11 to 15 of the Ruling, there were two principal challenges to the Award made in the Brazilian courts. The first he defined as the Annulment Application, which was filed by the Company on 18 June 2013, in which the Company sought to annul the Award under article 32 of the Brazilian Arbitration Law, on the basis that the decision of the arbitral tribunal was inconsistent with and was rendered in violation of Brazilian public policy. That application was dismissed on 20 June 2013, but this dismissal was in turn reversed by the Court of Appeals of the State of Sao Paulo, on 23 August 2013. The effect of that reversal was to remit the request for annulment to the lower court, and this process has yet to be completed. The judge commented (paragraph 26) that he had no information as to when the lower court was to hear the Annulment Application, and that he had no doubt that the unsuccessful party would wish to pursue an appeal. 5. The second application was defined by the judge as the Suspension Application, which was filed ex parte by the Company and by its parent company LAEP Holdings Ltd ("Holdings") on 1 October 2013 in the 43rd State Lower Civil Court in Brazil. That application was denied the following day, but the Company and Holdings appealed, and on 19 December 2013 the Sao Paulo State Court of Appeals made an interim order ("the Stay Order"), staying the effect of the Award pending the hearing of the Annulment Application. In our view this order and its effect are key to the determination of this appeal. 6. Accordingly, the position at the time of argument in this appeal is that the Award stands as a valid award, albeit one which remains subject to attack in terms of the Annulment Application, and the effect of which is subject to the Stay Order, pending both conclusion of the application to annul the Award, and of any further order which might be made regarding either the terms or continued existence of the Stay Order. Court of Appeal Reasons For Judgment
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CIVIL APPEAL No 2 of 2014 SAMPOERNA STRATEGIC HOLDINGS LTD v HUAWEI TECH INVESTMENTS CO. LTD & HUAWEI INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD. Appellant: Court of Appeal Zacca Judgment
BARBARA DIANA MARY LAMBERT and MYRON ADWIN PIPER (As Trustees of the Kwaanza Trust) v Darnell Todd-Wynn Court of Appeal Zacca Judgment
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CRIMINAL APPEAL No 17 of 2014 TYMOTHY SCRADERS v The Queen Court of Appeal Criminal Zacca Decision
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CRIMINAL APPEAL No 7 of 2014 NATALIE SIMPSON v The Queen Court of Appeal Criminal Zacca Reasons For Decision
Dameko Dublin v The Queen Court of Appeal Criminal Zacca Judgment
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CIVIL APPEAL No 3 of 2014 TRUSTEE 1 TRUSTEE 2 TRUSTEE 3 TRUSTEE 4 v The Attorney-General Respondent 2 Respondent 3 Court of Appeal Civil Zacca
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CIVIL APPEAL No 17 of 2013 BERMUDA HOSPITALS BOARD v Geneanne Woods-Forde Court of Appeal Civil Zacca Reasons For Decision
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2 of 2014 JONATHAN JON CUMBERBATCH v THE QUEEN REASONS FOR DECISION Baker, J.A. 1. On 29 May 2014, we allowed Jonathan Cumberbatch's appeal against conviction on Count 1 for serious sexual assault and substituted a conviction for the lesser offence of sexual assault. We refused an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence. Facts 2. On 3 May 2010, Cumberbatch was convicted on his own confession of four offences, one of serious sexual assault contrary to section 325(1)(d) of the Criminal Code and the other three of sexual exploitation contrary to section 182B(1) of the Criminal Code. On 16 July 2010 he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment being made up of 12 years for the serious sexual assault and 10 years concurrent for the other three offences. Simmons J made an order under section 70P of the Criminal Code that he should serve at least half of the sentence before consideration for parole. The Crown appealed against sentence and this was dismissed by a different Division of the Court on 9 June 2011 who affirmed the sentence. 3. The one issue that caused the Court to allow the appeal against conviction to go forward long out of time was whether the facts put forward by the Crown on count 1 amounted to serious sexual assault within the meaning of section 325(1)(d). If, as we concluded, they did not, the conviction on that count had to be set aside. Court of Appeal Criminal Zacca Reasons For Decision
Tracey Pitt v THE QUEEN Respondent/Appellant TRACEY PITT Baker, JA: 1. Tracey Pitt was tried in the Supreme Court before Wolffe AJ and a jury on an indictment containing six counts. On 10 September 2013 she was acquitted of counts 1 and 3, causing grievous bodily harm when driving a vehicle whilst impaired by alcohol and count 5 driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. She was convicted of counts 2 and 4, reckless driving contrary to section 320 of the Criminal Code and count 6, failing or refusing to provide a specimen of breath contrary to section 35C(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1947. She was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment concurrent on each count and on count 6 was also disqualified for 18 months with 8 demerit points. 2. On 19 March 2014 we allowed her appeal against conviction on counts 2 and 4 and dismissed her appeal against conviction on count 6. We allowed her appeal against sentence on count 6 to the extent of varying her sentence by vacating the 3 month sentence of imprisonment and reducing the disqualification from 18 to 12 months. We now give our reasons. Facts 3. On Sunday, 29 January 2012, about 2:30 a.m, the appellant was driving a Toyota Corolla south along Woodlands Road in Pembroke Parish. Just after she passed Canal Road on her left she collided with 36 year old twin brothers, Rudolph Smith and Randolph Smith who were on the tarmac wrestling in the south bound lane. They both received serious injuries. Rudolph sustained a fractured skull, lung contusions and his mental state was affected. Randolph had a fractured left ankle, a fractured dislocation of his left tibia and fibula, multiple lumber and pelvic fractures plus injuries to the face and head. No other vehicle was involved. 4. The appellant called 911. When the police arrived she showed signs of having consumed alcohol and was arrested. On being cautioned for driving whilst impaired she said "I'm sorry. I was driving my vehicle and I felt like I hit something." There was no evidence that she was driving at excessive speed. Police reconstruction concluded that the brothers had been dragged some 13.26 meters from impact. There were no brake marks but a witness said the appellant's brake lights came on followed by a short screech and impact. 5. She was taken to Hamilton Police Station and indeed admitted to having consumed two glasses of red wine. She was asked to provide a specimen of breath and at first agreed. But after she had been given the opportunity of speaking to a lawyer on the telephone and having been unable to contact one she refused on the ground that she had not spoken to one. Reckless Driving Court of Appeal Criminal Reasons For Decision
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda CRIMINAL APPEALS Nos. 20 & 21/21A of 2011 JAHMEL GLEN BLAKENEY SANCHEY WINSLOW KAIJUAN GRANT v The Queen Court of Appeal Evans Judgment