A further legal battle between Progressive Labour Party leadership and Curtis Dickinson unfolded today in the Commercial Court, with the court ordering the production of documents and striking portions of affidavits containing allegations of voter manipulation and fraud.
Dickinson was represented by King’s Counsel Delroy Duncan, while the Progressive Labour Party (PLP) was represented by Mark Pettingell. Supreme Court Justice Shade Subair Williams presided over the proceedings.
According to information captured by TNN News’ legal correspondent in court, the matter came before the court on a summons alleging breaches of previous orders made by the Acting Chief Justice.
The application sought, among other things, the production of resolutions from the September 8 special delegates committee meeting, as well as membership documents relating to the July 13 meeting. The application also sought an explanation as to why an affidavit verifying compliance with the court’s September 4 order had not been produced.
At the beginning of today’s hearing, Mr. Pettingell reportedly indicated that he believed the parties should attempt to resolve the matter rather than proceed with the litigation.
Following a brief adjournment and discussions between the parties, however, no settlement was reached.
According to Dickinson’s legal team, the difficulty centred on the position that a special delegates conference could potentially disenfranchise new PLP members who had joined during the past year, including preventing them from participating as delegates.
The matter therefore proceeded to argument.
Dickinson’s counsel argued that there had been breaches of the court’s previous orders and emphasised that the rule of law must be respected.
The court was reportedly told that the Central Committee could invite Dickinson to meetings and subsequently refuse him entry, and could decline to consider documents he had requested be placed before the committee, but that it could not disregard orders issued by the court.
The court also dealt with allegations of voter manipulation and fraud that had appeared in affidavits filed in the proceedings.
According to TNN News legal correspondent, the judge ordered that three affidavits be struck from the record, while portions of an affidavit filed by PLP Chair Dawn Simmons were also struck.
The material reportedly appeared under a heading referring to “voter manipulation fraud” but was found by the court to be irrelevant to the issues before it and not connected to the matters involving Dickinson.
The court also reportedly rejected an attempt to introduce additional affidavits, with Justice Subair Williams indicating that doing so could derail the substantive hearing already scheduled for October 1 and 2.
The judge is also expected to issue a written ruling dealing with the allegations concerning voter manipulation and fraud.
According to the account provided to TNN News, Dickinson’s legal team argued that those allegations should be withdrawn. That request was reportedly opposed by Mr. Pettingell.
A significant deadline was also established today.
The court ordered that the information required under its previous orders of September 4 and September 10 must be provided by 12 noon on September 22.
Justice Subair Williams reportedly made clear during the proceedings that the case before the court is not about the broader political dispute within the Progressive Labour Party, but about the legal and constitutional issues concerning the production of documents and compliance with court orders.
The substantive hearing remains scheduled for October 1 and 2.
TNN News will continue to follow the proceedings and report on the court’s written ruling and any further developments.
The above account reflects information obtained by TNN News from proceedings in the Commercial Court today.
Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful, or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites, or repeats previous comments will be removed.
User comments posted on this website are solely the views and opinions of the comment writer and are not a representation of or reflection of the opinions of TNN or its staff.
TNN reserves the right to remove, edit or censor any comments.
TNN accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for the comments made by users.