Tweet

Basseterre, St. Kitts — The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has delivered a major ruling in the long-running legal battle between Ramsbury Properties Limited and Ocean View Construction Limited, largely upholding enforcement proceedings against Ramsbury while striking down one controversial committal provision.

In a judgment delivered on June 29, 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed most of Ramsbury’s interlocutory appeal arising from attempts by Ocean View to enforce a judgment debt linked to a lease dispute dating back to 2009. The case involved premises at Pinneys Industrial Estate, Nevis, leased by Ramsbury to Ocean View to accommodate workers involved in the reconstruction of the Four Seasons Hotel.

The dispute began after Ocean View vacated the premises shortly after taking possession, alleging breaches of the lease. Ramsbury sued for breach of contract, while Ocean View counterclaimed for the return of its US$56,000 deposit. In 2011, the High Court dismissed Ramsbury’s claim and ruled in favour of Ocean View on the counterclaim.

That decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which dismissed Ramsbury’s appeal in December 2024. Ocean View then moved to enforce the judgment debt.

Ramsbury challenged the enforcement process, arguing that Ocean View’s judgment summons and supporting affidavit contained errors, including incorrect calculations of principal debt, interest, court fees, legal costs and the total amount claimed. Ramsbury also argued that the supporting affidavit, sworn by a legal clerk from Ocean View’s attorneys’ chambers, should not have been relied upon.

But the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, ruling that the defects were procedural and did not invalidate the judgment summons. The court found that the summons substantially complied with the Civil Procedure Rules because it properly identified the judgment, the judgment debt and the principal sum ordered to be paid.

The court also held that there is no rule requiring an affidavit filed on behalf of a company to be sworn only by a director, officer or employee. The affidavit, the court found, could stand because the affiant identified her role and the source of her information from the litigation file.

In a significant blow to Ramsbury, the Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court judge was entitled to proceed with the hearing, order the filing of an amended judgment summons, and make payment-related orders after Ramsbury participated in the hearing and proposed instalment payments.

However, Ramsbury succeeded on one important point.

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge erred when he included a provision that purported to trigger committal consequences if Ramsbury failed to comply with the payment and disclosure orders. The appellate court ruled that the required procedural safeguards for committal had not been satisfied, including proper service of an order endorsed with a penal notice on the relevant officer of the corporate judgment debtor.

As a result, paragraph 8 of the High Court’s April 30, 2025 order was set aside.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed except in relation to that committal provision. The remaining orders of the High Court were affirmed, and the stay of execution previously granted on June 24, 2025 was discharged.

On costs, Ocean View was awarded three-quarters of its costs of the appeal, while Ramsbury was awarded one-quarter, with both to be assessed by a High Court judge if not agreed.

The ruling represents another major chapter in a legal saga stretching more than 15 years, with the Court of Appeal making clear that procedural errors in enforcement documents will not automatically derail proceedings where the judgment debt is clear, the debtor has notice, and no prejudice is shown.

At the same time, the judgment sends an equally strong message that committal consequences cannot be casually attached to civil enforcement orders without strict compliance with the safeguards required by the Civil Procedure Rules.