Court Issues Another Ruling In PLP Matter
The Supreme Court has now issued a second written ruling in the “Hon. Curtis L. Dickinson et al v Simmons et al” matter, which is the legal case brought by PLP Leadership candidate Curtis Dickinson.
The 19-page document has been made public on the government website and contains various allegations and parts of affidavits, with the ruling addressing “the Rule of Law – Allegations of Breach of Court Orders- Application to vary Interlocutory Injunctive Relief – Application to strike out scandalous, irrelevant or oppressive portions of affidavit evidence under RSC Order 41 Rule 6.”
The introduction states, “The role of the Court is to determine and resolve issues of law, so to do right to all manner of people and without fear or favour, affection or ill will. “That is the essence of the Judicial Oath sworn by all Judges of the Court. In this case, the knock on the Court’s door is a plea to resolve whether the Central Committee of the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party [the “Party” / the “PLP”], an unincorporated association, acted contrary to its Constitution, ratified by delegates on 29 January 2021 [“the PLP Constitution”], and its Bye-Laws in passing or seeking to pass, by resolution process, Addenda imposing restrictions on (i) attaining new PLP membership and (ii) eligibility of new PLP members to be selected as Delegates.”
According to the document, Delroy Duncan KC and Ryan Hawthorne of Trott & Duncan represented the plaintiffs, while Mark Pettingill and Matthew Frick of Chancery Legal Limited represented the defendants.
The case will proceed to trial on October 1 and 2.
The leadership election is scheduled to be held at the PLP Conference, which has now been postponed, with the PLP previously saying that “the current court proceedings concern matters directly affecting membership and delegate eligibility. Until those issues are resolved, the Party cannot responsibly finalise the membership and delegate process upon which the remaining Conference timetable depends.”
“To be clear, this is a matter of process, not preference,” the PLP added. “Every member deserves a leadership election conducted on a clear constitutional basis and an outcome whose legitimacy cannot reasonably be called into question. The purpose of the postponement is to protect the integrity of that process and ensure that whoever is elected Leader has a clear mandate to lead the Party forward.”
