Judged ruled in FAVOUR of VIEC and squashes Beef Island agreement!!!

Fireworks going off! Fireworks!! Yippee!!

Justice Indra Hariprashad-Charles just minutes ago in the High Court ruled that Hans Creek is a fisheries protected area and that the approval letter issued by the Minister on 31st January 2007 is void for illegality.


If you read down though, you will also see that it is just the beginning, as there is a certain amount of "doublespeak" in the judgement, and we are sure this case will continue all the way up to the Privvy Council in the UK.
HOWEVER, this is another important victory in the case to protect Hans Creek and it's surrounding area. It also awards costs to VIEC, which will be so important down the line, although it may have to go all the way to the UK before they see any.

The case involved judicial review of the former NDP Government’s planning approval for a five-star hotel, marina and golf course that would destroy the scientifically documented biologically important Hans Creek Fisheries Protected Area in Beef Island, British Virgin Islands.


In the controversial case a battery of UK Lawyers, headed by renowned environmental lawyer Stephen Hockman Q.C appeared for the VI Environmental Counsel (VIEC) - who was claimant in the case, the Attorney General Kathleen Quartey who represented Government - the defendant and Gerard Farara Q.C who appeared for the developer, Quorom Island (BVI) Limited.

However, the Judge in handing down her judgment explained that Quorum made two applications for planning permission - one covering the master plan and the other the golf course.

She further explained that the master plan approval related to several main components other than the golf course, but including a hotel, inner marina, residential development, commercial development and infrastructural development which may not have an adverse impact on Hans Creek and may not give rise to illegality.

“VIEC says that the decision cannot be severed since it does not differentiate between the two aspects of the Project but imposes a single set of conditions in respect of both proposals and that a proper analysis is that the approval letter constitutes one development consent within the meaning of section 20 of the planning act. Not to say too much, I believe that this may assist the decision-maker to whom I shall remit this matter.”

Meanwhile, in relation to court powers in respect of quashing orders, Justice Charles stated that she was satisfied that there is a good reason for quashing the decision in so far as it relates to the ground of illegality, “I will remit the matter to the decision-maker and direct it to reconsider the matter and reach a decision in accordance with the judgment of this court.”

In relation to cost, the Judge stated that accordingly the Attorney General shall pay to the VIEC costs pursuant to CPR 65.5 (1) and Appendix A being $14,000.00 and that Quorom is to bear its own costs in these proceedings.

In addition, on the 28th April, 2009 after the conclusion of the preliminary issue, the Judge also awarded cost to VIEC which she said such costs should be assessed, if not agreed, and to be borne equally by Quorum and the AG.

“The parties may wish to make submissions on this aspect of costs unless agreement is reached. The latter is encouraged.”