Attorney objects to claim that Holness used influence to sway public bodies
Published:Wednesday | July 26, 2023 | 12:14 AMJovan Johnson/Senior Staff Reporter
Lawyers for Juliet Holness’ company at the centre of an $800-million court battle have dismissed the defendant’s assertions that the lawmaker used her influence to get public agencies to bend to her will.
Holness’ company, JAJ Development and Holdings Ltd, is suing marketing consultant Charlene Ashley for the splintered title for a piece of land on which the company’s incomplete apartment complex is located.
The trial, which started in May, resumed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday before Justice David Batts.
JAJ bought a piece of the Leas Flat, Red Hills, St Andrew, property (Lot One) on which Ashley lives in 2012 for $22 million. JAJ’s portion is Lot Two.
A condition of the 2012 sales agreement was for Ashley to deliver a splintered title, which was requested weeks after the sale in October 2012. Ashley is to get an apartment as part payment.
Ashley has countersued, accusing JAJ of trespassing on Lot One. One of the central issues in the case is determining the access road to JAJ’s property.
But Holness, a member of parliament elected first in 2016, deputy speaker of the House of Representatives and wife of Prime Minister Andrew Holness, has had to respond repeatedly to Ashley’s allegations that she used her connections with government entities to get her way.
On Tuesday, JAJ’s lead attorney, Rose Bennett-Cooper, sought to rebuke Ashley over another set of assertions in a letter she wrote to the Kingston and St Andrew public health department in 2019, complaining about damage she alleged Holness caused to soakaway pit on an easement shared by Lot One and Lot Two.
“It was your sewage, yes? Coming from your property, yes?” the lawyer asked, to which Ashley answered: “Yes, going to the soakaway pit.”
EXCERPT FROM LETTER
Bennett-Cooper later read an excerpt of Ashley’s letter to the public health department: “It is my clear understanding that a government agency is for the public protection and that all citizens are equal. We unfortunately have a situation where a person of major influence is able to reconfigure a regular citizen’s sewage and then be served with a notice that if the regular citizen does not fix damage caused by the person of influence, it shall render them the regular citizen liable to a fine or imprisonment.”
Bennett-Cooper then asked Ashley whether the tone and language of the letter were “intended to embarrass and discredit” Holness in a context where the problem was allegedly Ashley’s creation.
“No. The letter stated what happened and the letter stated, which is my firm belief, that Holness consistently uses the government agencies to take advantage and to help to bully us,” Ashley responded.
Bennett-Cooper was not pleased. She suggested that a “reasonable onlooker” could also conclude that Ashley is a “person of influence” based on the lawyers associated with her case since at least 2008. They include Phillip Paulwell, a former government minister and current opposition MP; Minett Palmer; and her current firm Knight, Junor and Samuels.
Ashley’s lawyer, Aon Stewart, objected, saying the question was not “fair” and asked whether she was inviting “opinion evidence”.
Bennett-Cooper shot back that the question was “eminently reasonable and fair” because, throughout the case, Ashley has made allegations that “certain decisions was made or certain things happened because Holness is a person of influence”.
“This question is to show that she is equally a person of interest and connections to political persons are also present in the evidence before this court,” she argued.
Justice Batts upheld Stewart’s objections, but Bennett-Cooper pressed the judge on whether he would be prepared to “similarly not give regard” to Ashley’s claims against Holness.
However, Batts indicated that Ashley’s response with the allegations was prompted by Bennett-Cooper’s questions.
“You asked her about it … . I don’t remember it featuring prominently otherwise. She was saying that Holness knew about the plans before because she has connections. But every contractor in Jamaica have dem connections in every parish council,” Batts said.
Meanwhile, Bennett-Cooper argued that Ashley “deliberately refused” to apply for splinter titles for Lot One and Lot Two because “you were determined that the claimant (JAJ) was not going to get the eight-metre road that you promised in the agreement for sale”.
“That’s actually ridiculous,” Ashley responded, adding that “the sales agreement is extremely clear on what she (Holness) gets”. Ashley said the agreement provided for an easement.
JAJ has rejected a splintered title Ashley submitted in December 2022, arguing that the width of an access road that runs between the two lots is three metres, or five metres short of what was allegedly agreed.
A stipulation for the construction of the access road to the apartment complex was that there should be no destruction of concrete structures, which Ashley contends occurred. Holness has denied that claim.
The trial continues today.