Speaker of the House of Assembly Julian Willock has been ordered by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme High Court to pay the legal fees of the defendants in his discontinued injunction case which was filed against the the Commissioner of Inquiry and his three attorneys.
This judgement was handed down by Justice Adrian Jack on Thursday September 30, where it was revealed that Speaker Willock could pay more than $120,000 once an assessment of the total fees has been completed.
The legal fees submitted by the Attorney General totaled $6,084 while the bill for Commissioner Sir Gary Hickinbottom along with his attorneys Bilal Rawat, Rhea Harrikissoon and Andrew King totaled $115,348.50.
Contract contradicts submitted affidavits
Prior to Justice Jack’s ruling, Willock’s attorneys were directed to submit evidence that supported their claims that the legal fees should be the responsibility of the BVI Government since they stated he was acting in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Assembly.
Senior partner at Silk Legal Richard Rowe and Speaker Willock both submitted affidavits which spoke to the contract between Willock, the BVI Government and Silk Legal.
Justice Jack following the assessment of their affidavits said that there seemed to be no basis on which legal professional privilege could properly be claimed in respect of the contract of retainer and secured a copy of the original contract.
According to the published document, the beginning of the contract stated, “1. Silk Legal (BVI) Inc thanks you, Mr. Julian Willock, Speaker of the House of Assembly, on behalf of the Government of the Virgin Islands, for your instructions… 2. The client is Mr. Julian Willock, Speaker of the House of Assembly, Virgin Islands acting on behalf of the Government of the Virgin Islands.”
Justice Jack said that the contract painted a very different picture than what both attorney Rowe and Willock submitted, stating that Willock was acting on behalf of the BVI government, that meant the client was the BVI government.
The judge said Willock was an agent acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal.
He said, “The contract was never signed by Mr. Willock. The only signatories were Mr. Rowe and Mr. Fahie. This reflects what in my judgment is the true position, namely that the Government of the Virgin Islands was the client.”
Contract did not cover injunction litigation matter
Justice Jack also highlighted another critical point which was submitted by the defendants’ counsel which stated that the contract retainer of the Speaker did not cover the litigation of the injunction matter.
According to the court document it said that clause 7(iv) only covered litigation “if any aspect of the COI work reaches a court of law as it related to the aforesaid members in their official capacity…”.
Justice Jack said the injunction action had no connection with members of the House of Assembly at all, stating that it is an action to prevent the three COI lawyers from continuing to act.
No authorisation given
Justice Jack also pointed to other parts of the contract which stated that Silk Legal’s work was to be assisting the Attorney General with legal representation, but only “in forms that the Honourable Attorney General approves and considers necessary.”
He said in the current case, the Attorney-General did not approve Silk Legal’s actions, therefore stating that clause 7(iv) of the retainer which dated May 28, 2021, did not in his judgment cover Silk Legal’s work in the injunction matter.
Assessment of costs to be completed
Justice Jack said he will assess the cost submitted by the Attorney General at the $6,084 figure, while Willock’s attorney from Silk Legal – Daniel Davies – asked for time to assess the COI submission which had significantly increased from the $71,388.59 figure which was submitted earlier in September.
Justice Jack therefore directed Davies to serve his points of dispute by close of business on October 5, and stated that his response would be forthcoming by October 8.
He also said an agreement was reached between all parties that the assessment of costs will be done on paper without a further hearing.