Stephen Turnbull Appointed New CFO For The Turks and Caicos Islands
The Department for International Development (DFID) has announced today, Mon, 18 Mar 2013, that it has nominated Stephen Turnbull as the Turks and Caicos Islands’ (TCI) new Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for an interim period with effect from 4 May 2013.
Mr. Turnbull will travel to TCI this week to begin handover and to assist the Ministry of Finance with its budget and fiscal planning. He is a qualified accountant with more than twenty years of experience, of which over five years have been in Overseas Territories, including two as a Public Finance Adviser in TCI.
Mr. Turnbull will remain CFO until the end of August, during which time he will help the TCI Government to continue on its path towards sustainable public finances. DFID is in the process of recruiting a permanent CFO to take over from Mr. Turnbull in due course.
As the By-Election for Richmond Hill and Cheshire Hall Constituency ED 7 Providenciales on Friday March 22, 2013 draws closer, Supervisor of Elections, Dudley Lewis has issued another reminder to candidates, that under the Election Ordinance they are NOT allowed to offer inducements to electors to influence their voting intention.
Candidates, political parties or anyone associated with them are not permitted to provide food, drink, gifts of any kind or cash during political rallies, meetings or general campaigning, as these could interpreted as an attempt to corruptly influence a voter in the way they cast their vote at the by-election.
This behavior, known as ‘treating’ is illegal. The Supervisor of Elections explained that ‘treating’ has been illegal for many years, although in past elections some people have chosen to ignore it. Such behavior is no longer being ignored. The person offering this kind of inducement is committing a serious criminal offence and so is any member of the public who accepts a gift or cash.
Mr. Lewis has warned that he will follow up on all reports received and will not hesitate to collaborate with the Police to initiate criminal investigation. He is also inviting members of the public to inform him if they are aware of any incident involving voter inducements. He also points out that inexpensive tee shirts, caps and advertising materials provided by political parties and candidates are not regarded as treating.
Dudley Lewis explains: “I have been satisfied that campaigning up to the present time has been overwhelmingly free and fair. By issuing this announcement I wish to ensure any tendency to cut corners and disregard election law is avoided during the intensive final days of campaigning”.
Leaders of political parties and Candidates are reminded of their obligation to continue to ensure their campaigns remain within the law.
A fair election, untainted by any hint of corrupt practices, is in the best interest of the voters of Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill and Citizens of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The Supervisor of Elections can be contacted by telephone 946-2558 and email at [email protected] .
Turks and Caicos cruise port closed due to virus outbreak
Published on March 18, 2013,Caribbean News Now
GRAND TURK, Turks and Caicos Islands — Following an outbreak in the Turks and Caicos Islands of 25 cases of a sickness that causes vomiting and diarrhea, the Carnival Cruise Port on the capital island of Grand Turk has been closed until sanitation measures have been completed.
Health officials under health minister and premier, Dr Rufus Ewing, have been trying in vain to locate the source of the virus causing the outbreak. There are no inter-island travel restrictions and a few cases have now cropped up in Providenciales, the most populated island.
There has been a continuing problem with the public water supply in Grand Turk, which has been in disrepair for approximately seven years. The reverse osmosis plant was replaced by the interim government but it remains for the elected government to provide the enclosure building and complete the installation. It is thought that the system may be contaminated.
Each cruise ship passenger pays a $3.50 arrival fee and the closure has resulted in economic setbacks to the government and local vendors.
More criticism of Turks and Caicos AG after election flip-flop
Published on March 18, 2013 ,Caribbean News Now
The acting attorney general tried to withdraw out of time election challenges against five sitting members of the TCI House of Assembly: (L-R) George Lightbourne (PNP); Edwin Astwood (PDM); Derek Taylor (PDM); Josephine Connolly (PDM); and Delroy Williams (PDM)
By Caribbean News Now contributor
PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands — Acting Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles has come in for even more criticism following her unexpected decision on Saturday to attempt to withdraw her election challenges to five sitting members of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) House of Assembly.
On Friday, March 9, Braithwaite-Knowles had filed a total of six challenges based on late or inadequate filing of notices with the Integrity Commission of interests in government contracts. Only one of such challenges was brought within the statutory five-day time limit – that against Amanda Misick, Progressive National Party (PNP) candidate in the Cheshire Hall/Richmond Hill by-election.
On Thursday and Friday, Braithwaite-Knowles argued before Chief Justice Edwin Goldsbrough in the Supreme Court in Grand Turk that Misick was disqualified from election as a result of her late filing of a required declaration of interests in government contracts.
However, the chief justice ruled against the acting attorney general in the Misick matter on Friday, thus allowing the by-election to go ahead as planned.
Out of time challenges by the acting attorney general against five sitting members of the House of Assembly: George Lightbourne (PNP); Edwin Astwood (PDM); Derek Taylor (PDM); Josephine Connolly (PDM); and Delroy Williams (PDM) for their alleged failure to disclose government contracts prior to the general elections in November last year were heard on Saturday, at which point Braithwaite-Knowles attempted to withdraw her applications.
However, in denying this request, the chief justice indicated that there were serious issues of law to be determined, which he needed to study in depth, and accordingly adjourned the case until April 9.
Braithwaite-Knowles’ overall conduct of the matter and the ongoing leakage of what should have been confidential information from the Attorney General’s Chambers prior to her filing the relevant applications with the court had already resulted in allegations of partisanship and of intentionally destabilising the TCI.
Braithwaite-Knowles is well known for her support of the PNP and a personal friendship with Premier Rufus Ewing, and her actions against predominantly Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) members of the Assembly fuelled this controversy.
Following the acting attorney general’s surprise decision on Saturday, a local weblog known to support the PNP has accused the Attorney General’s Chambers of “causing public alarm and attempting to destabilise the Turks and Caicos Islands.”
The cases in question stem from what seems to be varying interpretations of the exact nature of conditional Crown land leases and the resulting freehold title – whether they are an open contract with the government or a simple asset – something that was not made clear in instructions to the political parties by the Integrity Commission.
However, such Crown land leases appear never to have been treated as a binding contract by the government. In many reported cases, the agreed pricing contained in the lease was thrown out by the former PNP administration and local leaseholders were forced to pay a much higher price for the land than that specified. In some cases, leaseholders abandoned the leases and gave up the monies already paid down on the conditional lease. Many in the TCI therefore believe the leases are agreements subject to change by the government and are not binding contracts.
The new reporting requirement, albeit arguable in scope, resulted from the manipulation of the sale of Crown land by members and supporters of the PNP prior to the August 2009 imposition of direct rule by Britain. In what were called “land flips”, the PNP government ministers, relatives and supporters were alleged to have had parcels of Crown land appraised at a low value, then purchased the land for belonger discounts of as much as 75 percent and then within days resold the land for much higher prices to pre-arranged buyers.
A number of criminal charges of fraud and corruption laid against 12 former PNP ministers, their family members and others relate to this practice of land flipping.
However, according to Premier Ewing, the prosecutions, which are due to go to trial next month, are “a farce.”
The Party Leader Rufus Ewing along with soon to be three time winner of the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hills electoral district Amanda Missick has invited all residents, well wishers and supporters to join with the Progressive National Party this Saturday March, 16th at the National Stadium to kick off the By-Election week activities with a motorcade starting 6:00 pm to the PNP airport road headquarters that will top the night off with a MEGA MEGA MEGA RALLY that you don’t want to miss.
The Supervisor of Elections Dudley Lewis has advised that based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the matter between the Attorney General and Ms Amanda Anisha Missick; and considering the withdrawal of the challenge against Amanda Missick brought by Oral Selver and the withdrawal of the challenge against Oral Selver brought by Althea Ewing Williams; there will be a By-Election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill 7 th Electoral District as planned on March 22, 2013.
Therefore, both Candidates Mr. Oral Isaac Selver representing the People’s Democratic Party (PDM) and Ms Amanda A. Misick, representing the Progressive National Party (PNP) are eligible for the by-election.
Mr. Lewis has also cautioned the public against the publishing of false information about the withdrawal of any candidate. Under section 75(1) (b) of the Elections Ordinance, it is an offense to publish false information against any candidate in an effort to win votes for another.
Section 75 (1)(b) states
Every person who before or during an election knowingly publishes a false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate at such election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of anther candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice and shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine of $2,000 and be incapable during a period of five years from the date of conviction, of being registered as a voter or of voting at an election.
War of words between Britain and Turks and Caicos continues
Published on March 15, 2013,by Caribbean News.
TCI Premier Rufus Ewing (L) and Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague
By Caribbean News Now contributor
PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands — In a statement to the House of Assembly in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) on Thursday, Premier Rufus Ewing accused Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague of corruption.
Responding to a strongly worded letter on Tuesday from Hague, which had described Ewing’s speech last month to Caribbean Community (CARICOM) heads of government as a substantial misrepresentation, Ewing said that the release of Hague’s letter just prior to election petition court hearings and before a potential by-election was an attempt by Britain to influence the voters and the courts and is therefore a corrupt act.
Ewing then went on to defend his address to CARICOM. He repeated his position that CARICOM was a key factor in Britain’s recent agreement to shelve the imposition of value added tax in the TCI. However, none of the CARICOM member states or associate members has made any public statement expressing any opinion in relation to the TCI and/or VAT.
Hague had chided Ewing for failing to mention the dire state of the economy coming out of the previous Progressive National Party (PNP) government led by Michael Misick who, Hague pointed out, remains a fugitive from justice.
Ewing said there was no need for him to mention this because “we all know about these events.”
Ewing went on to say that he was sure that many TCI citizens now favour independence.
For the first time, Ewing, who is himself a medical doctor, spoke about the pressing health care issues in the TCI.
Weeks earlier, Ewing had celebrated the idea of the third party use of the hospitals and health care facilities for medical tourism. As these facilities are operated by private contractors funded by the TCI government, media questioning as to who benefits from the practice has been ongoing.
Ewing said he will be making sure that the TCI gets a share of the third party operations of InterHealth Canada, which is are operating the hospitals.
TCI taxpayers are responsible for paying a $120 million mortgage on the two small hospitals, which also includes an excessive 12 percent rate of interest. The National Health Insurance Plan (NHIP), in the creation of which Ewing was reported to have played a central role, is costing the TCI over 40 percent of every tax dollar collected.
On three separate occasions, Ewing has claimed that financial audits of the hospitals were underway but the new InterHealth Canada CEO said that no audits had been started.
Ewing also blamed the downturn in the economy for people losing their jobs and no longer paying 6 percent of their wages into the health plan.
Response to UK Foreign Secretary William Hague RE-Premier Dr. Rufus Ewing Caricom Speech
Published in TCI POST on 15th of March 2013
Dear Mr. Hague,
I appreciate your latest correspondence as of March 12. I am encouraged by your reaffirming the ideals and objectives lined out in the Overseas Territory White paper. Let me assure you that we in the TCI are equally interested in a flourishing partnership with the UK. However, as I have pointed out before and will point out again, the current situation is nowhere close to the ideals and standards that the White paper prescribes. The remarks at CARICOM were in no way meant to offend, but to correct the path that our friendship has taken in the past 4 years. Unfortunately, previous attempts to address these issues on a less public level had all fallen on deaf ears. As such, these remarks should be seen as an attempt to strengthen the relationship between our nations, and a strengthening of this relationship can only happen on terms that are perceived as fair, transparent and appropriate by both the TCI and the UK.
Before I go into detail on what we have perceived as wrong and unjust, let me make one point very clear.
The current PNP administration can in no way be held responsible for any alleged wrong-doings that happened during the previous PNP government under Michael Misick. While we still wait to see evidence presented in a court of law concerning the alleged actions of select individual of that former administration, let me remind you that the current government consists of a totally different set of persons and none of them have been implicated in the investigations surrounding the old government. As you might recall, there were a number of highly publicized scandals in recent years which involved a large numbers of British politician, both Labour and Tory. However we would never discredit your party, the Tories because of the failures of these few individuals in the past. And we will not discredit your coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, because of Chris Huhne’s personal failures and his recent criminal conviction. And neither will we discredit the good reputation of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty’s Government because of these past yet regrettable scandals. I will kindly ask you to adhere to the same standards when you refer to my party, the PNP, to my government and to the Turks and Caicos Islands as a whole. We have come a long way to reform our party and we won the recent democratic elections, bringing a group of young and energetic Turks and Caicos Islanders into government. My government deserves a chance to prove itself and we do not agree with constant comparisons and finger pointing to former members of parliament, and I am sure you will understand our concerns.
Let me move on to point out some points that we find troubling and that have caused a great amount of misunderstanding between our nations.
First of all, we welcome your acknowledgement of a broad responsibility for good governance in our territory. In fact, we would have much welcomed this commitment in previous times while alleged Mal-governance and serious wrongdoings by elected officials are said to have caused the dire financial situation we find ourselves in. But let me remind you that the judicial process was and is in no way expeditious or transparent. While our country and our people have already been burdened with a $260 Million loan for undisclosed liabilities, humongous ongoing costs of the prosecutions, the loss of democratic representation, the threat of ever rising taxes, not to mention the loss of self confidence and dignity for our nation – we have yet to see evidence presented in a court of law. While the verdict for our electorate has already been spoken and the punishment has been executed on our people over the past years, we have yet to see the bigger picture and hard facts of how all of these alleged crimes could have taken place under a British Governor and FCO.
In regards to the process of these investigations, many of my countrymen are deeply worried about the fact that foreign developers of a certain skin color involved in these alleged crimes were given the option to settle their cases for multi-million dollar settlement fees, while our own people have not been offered this option and are now facing criminal trials and jail time. It is further worrisome that the investigation stops short of investigating some individuals at all, if I can just mention the fact that no British bureaucrat has ever been mentioned in this investigation, yet it is alleged that $3 to 5 Billion in crown land assets have been removed from our country and the Governor at this time signed off on every single transaction. It is hard to see transparent and responsible action in this process.
In regards to the outcome of this investigation, I have to remind you that the recovered amounts are only barely higher than the costs of the investigation which currently stands at over $13 Million, leaving only a tiny amount of net gains after lawyers’ fees. In the scope of the overall scope of the alleged crime, this can only be labeled as the proverbial drop in the ocean.
In regards to the case of Mr. Michael Misick, let me assure you that it is totally beyond the power of myself or my government to control the actions of this one man. Mr. Misick is a grown man and he is making decisions for himself. I can only assume that he is trying to protect his legal rights and human rights during this investigation, which he is very much entitled to.
However at this point, I will have to remind you that it took the British Government more than a year to fund the investigation against Mr. Misick and a few more years to come up with official charges, and then Mr. Misick was given again more than 9 months to allegedly conceive a child in Brazil, all of which has massively deteriorated chances of bringing a proper judicial process against this one individual into motion. Once again, the current situation is unfortunate for all of us however it is not the time to cast blame on my administration which was just elected less than 5 months ago.
Then let me move on to the issue of VAT, which in itself has stood out as a frightening example of a heavy handed, non-transparent and irresponsible approach to governance executed by the British interim administration, particularly by current Governor Ric Todd and the CFO McGarel-Goves. To implement such a massive new tax burden without proper consultation, against the will of the whole electorate and the whole business community, without any consideration of our economic situation and without any fine-tuning to our specific circumstances, this alone has all the markings of an arbitrary dictatorship and not the flourishing partnership that you cited. I could go on and fill many pages on this topic, however since the whole dilemma is so well documented, I will leave it at that. I will however mention that the recent refusal to sign the VAT repeal bill and to leave the tax hanging over our heads is an unprecedented case in both the TCI and UK legislative process. This has only lead to a further hardening in emotions for my people, which was so easy to avoid had we only been listened to early last year – this is what a flourishing partnership would have easily prevented from happening.
To close my response, let me make clear that we stick with our call to recall Governor Ric Todd and the Attorney General, and that we are relieved that the current CFO is leaving and will hopefully be replace by an individual that has an ear for our concerns and a heart for our country. The country is spiraling out of control with Ric Todd at the helm. Not only has he alienated every political and religious denomination in this country, he has caused much sorrow and distress for my long suffering people. We are a forgiving people but in his case, too many lines have been crossed, and too much disrespect has been displayed towards our country and culture. On top of that, we are faced with a deteriorating health situation and a rise in crime which has lead to the historic Travel Advisory by the US embassy issued yesterday. We are thriving to accomplish a flourishing relationship with the UK, however this will only be possible with a new set of representatives and a fresh new beginning.
Let me conclude by reiterating my believe that not all is lost, and that the TCI and the UK can move forward as a partnership between equals, and that we can learn from each other rather than pull each other down. There is a lot that is still to be achieved to improve our relationship, and we will not turn down any honest attempt to assist us and pave the road to the future. I hope this open discourse will set the foundation for a process that ultimately leads to the achievement of our goals.
Rayer
ATTORNEY GENERAL LOSES EMERALD CAY STAMP DUTY RECOVERY CASE AT PRIVY COUNCIL
By Hayden Boyce – Publisher & Editor-in-Chief,on 15th of March 2013
Prominent Turks and Caicos Islands Queen’s Counsel Ariel Misick secured a stunning victory at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) on Wednesday March 14th, 2013, when British law Lords dismissed an appeal that was brought by Attorney General Huw Shepheard, the Civil Recovery Unit and the Registrar of Lands over the recovery of unpaid stamp duty and penalties in relation to sale of the private island of Emerald Cay.
In the case which was heard before Lord Hope, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Sir John Chadwick who delivered the judgment, the Privy Council found that the Registrar of Lands operated outside of the law in dealing with the stamp duty issue surrounding Emerald Cay, once owned by American billionaire Tim Blixseth and which is located off Silly Creek and Chalk Sound, on the island of Providenciales.
Queen’s Counsel Misick, who was instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, was the lawyer for Ross Richardson, the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Yellowstone Club World, a company owned by Blixseth and which had interests in Emerald Cay. Lawyers for the Interim Government were Queen’s Counsel David Phillip and Patrick Patterson, instructed by Edward, Wildman and Palmer of the Civil Recovery Unit.
On March 12, 2011 the Attorney General, on behalf of the then Interim Government, commenced proceedings against (amongst others) Emerald Cay Ltd for recovery of unpaid stamp duty and penalties. The Government obtained judgment in those proceedings on June 21, 2011, then the case went before Mr. Justice Martin on June 7th 2011.
By an order made on June 9th, 2011 Judge Martin ordered that the Registrar of Lands remove the restriction and register the charge. The Emerald Cay owners appealed that order and it went before the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Edward Zacca, Elliott Mottley and Richard Ground who dismissed the appeal on January 26 2012 and affirmed the order of the Supreme Court.
The issue raised by the appeal before the Privy Council was whether the Registrar was wrong to register a restriction, under section 132 of the Registered Land Ordinance, against property in respect of which the Government claimed an interest in respect of unpaid stamp duty.
According to the 19-page judgment, it was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General, that it was immaterial that the Government may have been wrong to assert, in its application for the entry of a restriction, that it had an interest in the land comprised in title 60400/219.
The judgment stated: “The relevant questions were (1) the extent of the Registrar’s power to register a restriction and (2) whether, on the facts known to her, it was lawful for her to have exercised that power. In relation to the first of those questions the appellants rely exclusively on section 132(1) of the Registered Land Ordinance: it is not said that this is a case in which section 132(3) has any application. It is accepted that the power conferred by section 132(1) is discretionary: “…the Registrar may… make an order … prohibiting or restricting dealings with any particular land …” (emphasis added). But it is pointed out that the discretionary power may be exercised “for any … sufficient cause”; and that it may be exercised by the Registrar of her own motion: “… without the application of any person interested in the land …”. Those propositions are not in dispute. But, on the facts as presented (and, in particular, in the absence of any evidence from the Registrar herself), it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, in this case, the Registrar did not exercise the power conferred by section 132(1) of her own motion: she exercised that power on the basis of the application that was made on behalf of the Government.”
The judges added: “ In exercising the power on the basis of the application that was made on behalf of the Government – and in making Entry No 5 on the register – the Registrar must be taken to have accepted that the Government was entitled, by virtue of the interest in the land which it claimed, to prohibit any dealing with the land comprised in title 60400/219. The Board (judges of the Privy Council) can see no escape from the conclusion that the Registrar did not, in fact, ask herself whether there was any sufficient cause – other than the claim made on behalf of the Government – which should lead her to enter a restriction.
“In reaching that conclusion the Board rejects the submission, made on behalf of the appellants, that the restriction entered comprises two distinct limbs: (A) a statement that “The Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands claims an interest under the Stamp Duty Ordinance in whole of the above-mentioned parcel as more fully set forth in the Application to Enter a Restriction dated 19 May 2010” and (B) an order, made under section 132(1) of the Ordinance, by which the Registrar “prohibits any dealing with the parcel until the full amount of stamp Duty on the sale of the parcel from Worldwide Commercial properties Ltd to Emerald Cay Ltd on 14 August 2006 has been duly paid”.
“It is plain that the subject of the verb “prohibits” is “The Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands”: the restriction cannot be read in the sense that it is the Registrar who is the subject of that verb. And, given that the text of the restriction follows, without material variation, the text of the restriction applied for in the Government’s application dated 4 June 2010, that is unsurprising.”
The judgment continued: “ If the Registrar did not, in fact, ask herself whether there was sufficient cause – other than the claim made on behalf of the Government – which should lead her to enter a restriction, then her decision to do so was flawed in law. For the reasons that Mr. Justice Martin and the Court of Appeal have given, there was no basis for the Government’s claim that it was entitled to an interest in the land comprised in title 60400/219; and no basis upon which the Government was entitled to prohibit dealings with that land until the full amount of the stamp duty payable on the transfer from Worldwide Commercial Properties Ltd to Emerald Cay Ltd had been made.
“It was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General that the fact that the Registrar’s decision to enter a restriction was reached on a flawed basis is not fatal to the validity of the restriction. It is said that, on the material which was before her, the Registrar could properly have reached a decision to enter a restriction without relying on the Government’s claim to an interest in the land: “. . . what matters is whether the material in the Registrar’s possession justified the exercise of the power. If it did, the power will have been exercised lawfully”.
Emerald Cay was acquired on August 14 2006 by Emerald Cay Ltd a company incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands of which Mr. Timothy Blixseth was the ultimate beneficial owner.
The purchase price paid by Emerald Cay Ltd was US $28million, but that the acquisition was structured through a series of agreements in such a way that the consideration stated in the transfer to Emerald Cay Ltd – and on which stamp duty was paid – was US $10million.
Yellowstone Club World LLC, another company of which Mr. Blixseth was the ultimate beneficial owner, was party to one of those agreements. On August 17 2006 Emerald Cay Ltd was registered as the proprietor of the property.
On February 18 2009 Mr. Richardson was appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana to be the Trustee of the Estate of Yellowstone Club World LLC.
On March 5th 2009, as Trustee, he lodged a caution with the Registrar of Lands, pursuant to section 127 of the Registered Land Ordinance, forbidding the registration of dispositions and the making of entries in respect of the property (Emerald Cay) registered under title number 60400/219 without his consent.
The caution was registered by the Registrar on March 25th 2009.
On November 24 2009 the Trustee commenced proceedings against Mr. Blixseth in the United States. The claims made in those proceedings included claims in respect of the Emerald Cay property. The Trustee and Mr. Blixseth reached a settlement in respect of those claims; and, on 10 June 2010 the United States Bankruptcy Court approved the terms of that settlement.
On 13 August2010 Emerald Cay Ltd executed a collateral charge over the property for the purpose of securing payment of US $9.6million under the settlement. On 16September 2010 the Trustee applied to the Registrar for withdrawal of the caution and registration of the charge.
In the meantime, on 4 June 2010, the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands, having become aware of the underpayment of stamp duty due on the transfer of the Emerald Cay property to Emerald Cay Ltd in August 2006, applied to the Registrar for a restriction to be entered, pursuant to section 132 of the Registered Land Ordinance, prohibiting dealings with the property until the full amount of the stamp duty had been paid.
That application was made without notice to the Trustee. The Registrar ordered the restriction sought; and it was entered on the same day (4 June 2010).
On 12 October 2010 the Land Registry informed the Trustee that, pursuant to his application of 16 September 2010, his caution had been withdrawn; but that, by reason of the restriction which had been entered on 4 June 2010, the charge could not be registered.
On 12 March 2011 the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, commenced proceedings against (amongst others) Emerald Cay Ltd for recovery of unpaid stamp duty and penalties. The Government obtained judgment in those proceedings on 21 June 2011.
On 27 April 2011 the Trustee commenced proceedings before the Privy Council seeking removal of the restriction and registration of the charge.
