Saturday 23 March, 2019

Comissiong comes out on top in Hyatt ruling

(FIle Photo) Attorney-at-law David Comissiong.

(FIle Photo) Attorney-at-law David Comissiong.

Attorney at law David Comissiong has won the battle against Prime Minister, Fruendel Stuart in the controversial Hyatt Hotel case but the war is not over just yet.

On Wednesday parties involved in the case went before Justice Sonia Richards in the Supreme Court to hear the ruling for whether Comissiong has the legal standing to challenge Stuart’s decision, as Minister responsible for Town and Country Planning matters, to grant building permission to Vision Development for construction of the Downtown Hyatt Hotel.

The Judge ruled in Comissiong’s favour.

Do you want the construction of a Hyatt in Barbados to continue?

Yes at Bay Street
49%
Yes but at another location
32%
No
19%

The ruling, Comissiong explained, was made on the basis that under the Town and Country Planning Act, Comissiong was a person aggrieved by the granting of the permission, that under the Administrative Justice Act Comissiong was a person whose interest was adversely affected by the decision to grant permissions and also that there was sufficient public interest in whether the granting of building permission is correct or incorrect.

Related Article

Comissiong told the media he firmly believes he has been appointed as “Minister of Responsibility” and he intends to act in the best interest of Barbadians in upholding justice.

“We are all called upon humbly to be ministers of love and justice and righteousness and all of us must resolve to be the protectors of our country to where we believe that something is going wrong… to do God’s will in an active, determined manner.”

“What I am doing with this case, I am doing it in humility and I am seeking to be a minister of justice and righteousness, I am trying to look out for the best interest of this country.”

The defendants have appealed the Judge’s decision and Comissiong said, as he prepares to enter into more legal proceedings, he is maintaining that the decision by Stuart was made in the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and it needs to be revisited.

Get the latest local and international news straight to your mobile phone for free: