hwachef.blogg.se

Mark Finlayson, in affidavit supporting their case for an injunction, alleged he and his father would otherwise be “exposed to serious commercial harm and potentially irreparable loss for which damages would not be an adequate remedy”.

However, Sir Michael rejected the duo’s bid to “stay” both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal rulings, each of which found for Caterpillar, and the $2.743m award until the Privy Council delivers its verdict.

He also dismissed Caterpillar’s argument that the proposed Privy Council appeal raises issues not argued before either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, adding that it was “an appeal as of right” and that the Finlaysons should be granted conditional permission to take their legal campaign to London. “There is no basis for finding that this appeal is for an improper motive or purpose, or that its prospects of success are fanciful,” he wrote. Sir Michael, though, rejected this on the grounds that just because an appeal may not succeed does not render it an abuse of legal process. However, the former liquor magnate and Mr Finlayson were successful in persuading the Court of Appeal to grant them permission to appeal to the UK-based Privy Council, the highest court in the Bahamian judicial system, over a verdict stemming from their default on a multi-million loan that was secured on their high-end yacht, Maratani X.Ĭaterpillar Financial Services Corporation, the creditor and award winner, had opposed the Privy Council appeal by Sir Garret and his son on the grounds that it was “an abuse of process” because their case is “hopeless and has no prospects of success”.

The duo’s bid to prevent a US financial services provider from enforcing the judgment award against them on the basis they would suffer “grave commercial harm”, prior to the hearing of their Privy Council appeal, was rejected by Sir Michael Barnett and his fellow appeal judges because no evidence was provided to support their assertion.

Tribune Business by Sir Garet ‘Tiger’ Finlayson, and his son, Mark, that they will “be potentially ruined” should a $2.743m judgment be enforced against them have failed to sway the Court of Appeal.