The Potlatch Group sought to block the hotel’s use of the beach, arguing that the land was private and that the permission granted by the Administrator was unlawful, made without consultation, and could harm the value and use of their property. However, Justice Carla Card-Stubbs ruled that the Administrator’s decision was unambiguous, and therefore not subject to judicial review.
In her judgment, Justice Card-Stubbs explained that judicial review is only applicable when the decision in question is justiciable, meaning it must be unequivocal. She concluded that the Administrator’s decision to grant Rock House Hotel access to the beach was valid and within his authority. The Potlatch Group had argued that the decision was irrational and would negatively impact its development plans for a hotel villa, but the court disagreed, stating that the application did not meet the legal criteria for judicial intervention.
The crux of the dispute was over the interpretation of a letter dated February 15, 2022, which granted Rock House Hotel “beach access.” The Potlatch Group contended that the letter allowed the hotel to use what they considered their “beach frontage,” but the court found that the letter merely granted access to the beach, not permission to use the beachfront. Justice Card-Stubbs clarified that the term “beach access” referred specifically to the right to maintain and access the designated beach area, and not to encroach on the land the Potlatch Group claimed.
Justice Card-Stubbs rejected the Applicant’s argument that the term “beach access” should be interpreted to include “beach frontage,” stating that the language in the letter was plain and unambiguous. There was no evidence to support the claim that the Administrator had granted permission for anything beyond beach access.
The court also considered the delay in filing the judicial review application, which was submitted nine months after the decision was made. While the Potlatch Group argued that they had only learned of the decision late and needed time for investigation, Justice Card-Stubbs ruled that the delay was unreasonable. She noted that the Applicant had previously treated the beach as Crown land, demonstrated by their attempt to lease it through the Bahamas Investment Authority. Consequently, the court determined that the delay did not justify an extension of time for the application.
Justice Card-Stubbs concluded that no decision had been made granting permission to use the beachfront as the Applicant had claimed. She emphasized that judicial review was not the appropriate forum for resolving the private dispute over ownership and rights to the beachfront.
Loading ...
