NASSAU, BAHAMAS- The Court of Appeal has overturned a $70,000 Supreme Court judgment in a family loan dispute, sharply criticizing years of procedural delays and describing the matter as a “colossal waste of judicial time.”
The case stems from a 2014 action in which the estates of Stephen and Bessie Serrette alleged that attorney Sonia Timothy-Serrette had borrowed the proceeds from the $70,000 sale of their Yamacraw Beach Estates property, with a promise to repay within two years. When repayment was not made, they sued for breach of an oral contract.
After a protracted series of adjournments, no-shows, and delayed rulings, the Supreme Court in September 2022 sided with the Serrette estate, ruling that the payment constituted a “soft loan” to be repaid. Timothy-Serrette appealed, arguing there was no written evidence of a loan agreement as required.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge had erred in law by accepting the claim without written proof. The appellate panel— set aside the ruling entirely and awarded costs to Timothy-Serrette.
The Court found that the absence of a written acknowledgment or signed promise was fatal to the claim. “Simply put, rules of the court exist for a reason. Regrettably, what transpired in the court below can only be described as a colossal waste of judicial time,” the ruling stated.
The judges were particularly critical of case management in the Supreme Court, noting that a strike-out application filed by the appellant in 2016 was left unresolved for years. Instead of being determined as a preliminary issue, the matter was repeatedly adjourned and eventually proceeded to trial, dragging on until 2022.
Justice of Appeal Evans, concurring, lamented the eight-year delay between the filing of the case and the Supreme Court’s judgment. He pointed to the strain of trying to fit civil matters into a heavy criminal calendar, observing that the outcome “should be a cautionary lesson” for the judiciary.
