Govt Satisfied With Court Ruling: MacLean Case

August 26, 2015

The Government has today expressed its satisfaction with the recent Supreme Court decision involving developer Michael MacLean and the City waterfront lease.

“The Chief Justice has struck out The Allied Trust’s and Allied Development Partners Limited’s claim made against the Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney General that the voiding of the Waterfront agreements was unconstitutional in a judgment dated 24 August 2015,” a spokesperson said.

“In his judgment, the Chief Justice found the attempt to pursue the claim by Allied as an abuse of process:“…I find that the Applicants are bound by their election to pursue compensation for the voiding of the Agreements and have, as a result, abandoned [rather than waived] the right to challenge the validity of the voiding process. It follows that it is an abuse of process for them to pursue any relief designed to regain control of the voided Agreements.”

“He further determined Allied’s claim to be “…a gross misuse of the constitutional processes of the Court.”

“The people of Bermuda will recall the concerning allegations made by Mr MacLean during the course of these proceedings. Those allegations centered around the conduct of three Government Ministers, which were strenuously denied.

“The Government’s evidence during the hearing was supported by a former Crown Counsel who has served under successive Attorneys-General of the current and previous Governments. The Chief Justice also stated early on that “these allegations had no relevance to the strike out issue.”

“The Chief Justice rejected Allied’s evidence by saying, “It follows that I reject entirely the suggestion made in [the Second Maclean Affidavit] that the Respondents’ true reasons for seeking to strike out the present proceedings are to prevent the allegations of misconduct identified in that Affirmation and the First Peniston Affidavit from being subjected to “sufficient scrutiny”. This suggestion on its face makes no sense bearing in mind that: … Because despite filing detailed pleadings in the Arbitration and a fully particularized Originating Summons filed in the present proceedings, no assertion has ever been made which expressly or impliedly suggests a ground of complaint which impugns in a similar or connected manner the integrity of the Government actors involved…”

“The result of this judgment is that the matters relating to the Waterfront development will return to the arbitral process where they belong and it is hoped that the matter can be resolved promptly.”

The Court ruling is below [PDF here]:

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TRUTH says:

    Looks like Government will still have to pay MacLean. In away, MacLean still has the option to ensure payment or he can take the case back to Supreme court.

    I think since this court case did not or was not intended to address Corruption within the government. Dunkley should now push for an Inquiry to address possible government corruption alleged of 4 of his Minister.

    • Unbelievable says:

      This story is still not written and so that’s why the Premier is not jumping on the inquiry bandwagon.

    • James says:

      MacLean lost big, and his claims of corruption were rubbished by the highest court in the land.

      Why in the heck should we run to set up a Commission of Inquiry based on the allegations levied by a man who is now 0 for 2 on these high profile cases against the Government? Does he have a shred of credibility?

      • TRUTH says:

        This case never did have anything to do with Government Corruption. I made that point before. That is why the Opposition was requesting an Inquiry to address the possible concerns of Government Corruption. The Case had specific objectives:

        1. The questioning of Voiding the Waterfront Lease
        2. Financial Compensation for MacLean. That the Trust is entitled to recover all consequential loss as a result of the voiding.

        This is what many folks overlooked. It looks like MacLean may be able to at least get the financial compensation he really wanted. The Dunkley government knew this, but still put misinformation out in the public eyes. This is still likely to cost us the Taxpayers huge amount of money.

      • Unbelievable says:


      • Yamon says:

        The highest court is the Privy Council

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          Correct in that assessment, I think he was talking about locally though. And as an added note, it would be idiotic to try and take this higher to the Privy after a ruling like this. But well caught correction.

          • Trulytruly says:

            Having got this far do you think he will appeal?

    • jt says:

      Based on statements from MacLean which alleged payment methods that were so infantile in their ease of detection? Like putting funds in Minister’s mother’s bank account? Sorry, this guy has exposed himself in this and the Par La Ville affair. I don’t want any more money wasted on an inquiry centred on his words.

    • Sickofantz says:

      So you are truth! The report clearly indicates that no evidence was given of any wrongdoing of the government ministers despite assertions.

      I wonder why?

      • Unbelievable says:

        Cuz it’s that campaign that’s under way to remove the OBA. The story is tilt written as I said. Just keep watching.

    • For Christ Sake, they Legislated a Law to justify canceling contracts, gotta give it to them, a calculated move, devious but calculated.
      Know I see how the Europeans went around the world and claimed land.

      • Well, stole but who cares right.

        • jt says:

          We should all care and be thankful that MacLean and those guiding this scheme were stopped.
          Where’s the $19 million by the way? That issue has been quiet. Governemnt better not let that fade.

        • hmmm says:

          Nobody people originated in Bermuda. So where are you traveling back to so we can give Bermuda back to the birds and bugs.

        • Ed Case says:

          Boring as usual. What would you moan about if race didn’t exist?

          • ‘IF’ pigs had wings they would probably fly, but it does exist and even though its uncomfortable for people like you, we still have to deal with it.
            Even though most white people don’t like to hear about it(and some black Surrogates) they have benefitted and are benefiting from it economically and socially.

            • Attitude Of Gratitude says:

              While I can respect were your coming from-
              I’m a fourth generation Bermudian who has both black and white in my family. To look at me you would never know that to be the case. Both sides were poor people who emigrated to Bermuda for a better life. Please stop lumping all white people into this group of well off people who grew up with a silver spoon in there mouth!

      • RBKing says:

        In this guy’s court case, which he lost, he was alleging damages of $90m.

        Where would he have got the idea that a government contract should yield him personally $90m?

        Who in their right minds would think that is reasonable?

      • Sad says:

        Interesting that you and others are up in arms about the 30 year airport deal that will be completed by a globally respected firm who has a long successful record of such developments. A project that is being overseen by the UK and Canadian Govt to ensure that it is completed properly and prudently.

        Then on the other hand you have no issues privatising the public waterfront for 262 years to an unproven developer with financing from who knows where. A project that was granted under highly suspicious circumstances according to a CoH insider and the Ombudsman.

        On top of that you and other supporters of this so called developer have yet to ask him why the $18mn parking lot money was wired to his personal account and then on to wherever it ended up while the parking lot is now in Mexican hands. Despite these facts you still support the man’s claim to the waterfront?

        You’re a damn hypocrite. Now continue on with your sad race baiting while also standing up for malfeasance. Joker.

    • Pamela says:

      They can go back to arbitration and yes Mr. MacClean might get some money.
      A Royal Commission or inquiry is not required to investigate his allegations.
      He either has evidence or he doesn’t.
      If he has some actual evidence to back his claims of corruption he should take it to the police. If he doesn’t, he should admit it and hope that the leaking of the affidavit can’t be traced back to him. As it is, these allegations are unfounded and uncorroborated but the opposition, instead of confronting Mr. MacClean and trying to aquire the supposed evidence or encouraging him to go to the police, will continue to flog this horse for political purposes. It serves no one but themselves.

    • RBKing says:

      Maclean has lost. He completely lost. You need to read the court ruling.

      I hope the court makes an award for costs.

      • Ringmaster says:

        It would seem that at least the Government (taxpayers) will get their costs back. Assuming of course Mr. McLean has the money.

    • Cow Polly says:

      TRUTH – until there is a shred of credible evidence that there is probable government corruption NOT possible, the Premier should not waste the tax payers money or time calling for an Inquiry.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      They may have to pay him compensation for the voiding, but it is going to be well below and more reasonable than the $90m he was trying to extort. In the previous ruling, the judge even highlighted that the only reason MacLean brought this to court was because the arbitration he was already engaged in wasn’t going his way. In this ruling the judge even called into question the affidavits MacLean filed as Mr. MacLean failed to make any assertions to them. Additionally, everything that Mr. MacLean claims he also says that he gave the evidence to the police, so there would be a police investigation into their validity, so why do we need an inquiry?
      What appears to be happening here is that Mr. MacLean wants compensation for monies that he hasn’t spent on a deal that by all accounts was given to him as a result of a questionable process, for a development that he has provided no evidence he could pull off, particularly in the face off of his failure to secure the Par-la-ville hotel for which he still has not produced the $18+ million that he borrowed and claimed to have not spent.

    • YOSH says:

      In reality if this is the outcome of the case,the tax payer (people who live and reside in Bermuda) will have to pay not the “government”. Where does the government source it’s revenue from….

  2. max says:

    We all knows the old Gov set up this 262 lease situation, not benefiting the people.
    And, they borrowed & someway made $18M travel to Arabia or somewhere.

    Now these characters, they’re licking their lips for the Peoples Money we could use on schools, etc.

    Gov Auditor said it was a dodgydeal.
    Compensation for what? Why? LOL

  3. Ringmaster says:

    The PLP are always going on about the OBA giving away Bermuda to people who are not born Bermudians. Michael McLean was born in Jamaica. The PLP should be celebrating the Chief Justice’s ruling. Where are the PLP to support this ruling?

  4. Truth is killin' me... says:

    MacLean come CLEAN!! Maybe if you were honest about things you would get more sympathy.

  5. Where is the $18m says:

    Hey Mikey,

    Wheres the 18 mill????