Man spared jail for contempt with opposing attorney's help

A TOBAGO man was spared a jail term for contempt of court on Tuesday morning and the judge has commended the opposing counsel for his candour in assisting the court with that decision.

Tobagonian Andy Greenidge appeared virtually before Justice Frank Seepersad on Tuesday morning on a contempt application brought against him by his mother Juliana Barbara Greendige-Hamilton.

On July 13, the court had granted injunctive orders restraining Greenidge his agents or servants from demolishing Greenidge-Hamilton's house at 103 Orange Field Road, Chase Village.

In spite of the injunctive orders, the property, which is the subject of another matter before the court to determine share and entitlement, was demolished on July 21.

When the matter came up for hearing, Seepersad said the circumstance was not only regrettable but unacceptable and warned that the court would not tolerate breaches of court orders and acts of unlawfulness. He said the court took a very strong position when it came to the protection of its processes.

Attorney Arden Williams who represented the claimant, told the court that Greenidge, who joined by telephone, did not have an attorney.

Greenidge said he was not responsible for the demolition but the intended purchaser of the land had demolished the structure.

Williams corroborated Greenidge’s position saying that he had received information to that effect.

Seepersad thanked Williams for his candour and honesty. He said it was important to hear all sides before a decision was made.

“Were it not for that information the court would not have had the clarity that it now has with respect to how it ought to deal with this instant matter.”

He told Williams. “I am very appreciative of the position which you took because as I indicated I think it demonstrates the high standards which judges expect of lawyers and in a society where often courts are in the unenviable position where there are many representations from lawyers which we cannot take at face value, it is indeed refreshing and quite frankly, offers a measure of hope that all is not lost."

“Having regard though the information that is before me, I cannot at this stage be satisfied that the defendant stand in contempt of court.”

He said the order issued on July 13 did not express that Greenidge had to inform the intended purchaser of the order.

He said the order was framed in terms of Greenidge and his servants or agents.

Seepersad said that he had no reason to conclude that the intended purchaser was acting as Greenidge's agent when demolishing the house.

“In the circumstances, therefore, I am dismissing this contempt application with no order as to cost.”

The matter concerning the title of the property will be heard on November 3. Seepersad said the injunctive orders remain in effect.

He also consented to Williams’ request to have the intended purchaser be added as a defendant in the matter.