Senate President Must Pay Four Years Rent Arrears!

On 29 January 2020, Elizabeth Darius-Clarke, in her own and in the interest of family members, filed a claim in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court against Stanley Felix in the sum of $81,000 for unpaid rent during the period January 2012 to June 2016—54 months. According to court documents, in June 2011 Felix entered into a written lease agreement with the claimants to occupy their premises at a monthly rental of $1500. At the start of the tenancy, Felix paid two months’ rent plus security deposit, a total of $4500. He later paid $5000. No further payments were made. In February 2020, he acknowledged service of the appellants’ claim and indicated his intention to file a defense. He did not follow through. In consequence, the respondents filed a request for a default judgment. Felix was notified of this filing and he in turn filed for an extension of time to file a defense.

A default judgment was entered against Stanley Felix in June 2020, in the sum of $104,900.50. $81,250 as claimed by the respondents, pre-judgment interest totaling $21,937.50 and other incidental costs and fees in the amount of $1,713. On 24 June 2020, Felix filed an amendment converting his application for an extension of time into an application to set aside the default judgment altogether.

The Supreme Court noted: “In the court below the learned master first considered whether the appellant [Stanley Felix] had satisfied the conjunctive requirements of Rule 13.3(1). She found that while the application was made as soon as reasonably practicable, he did not have a good explanation for failing to file his defense. Nor did he have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim . . . She also did not find there were exceptional circumstances that would justify setting aside the default judgment under 13.3(2), whether the learned master erred in failing to properly consider the issue of prescription, and whether it was an exceptional circumstance justifying the setting aside or varying the order.”

At the hearing of the application and on appeal counsel for Stanley Felix, Diana Thomas, had argued that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 was an exceptional circumstance warranting the setting aside of the default judgment. The Supreme Court adjudicators concluded: “As this was not found to be a good explanation for the failure to file a defense within the prescribed period, it follows that it cannot amount to an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of the rule.”

A remarkable aspect of the case: “Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was a clear acknowledgment of the debt for arrears for rent, based on the contemporaneous correspondence attached to the statement of claim. The correspondence includes a WhatsApp message from the first respondent [Elizabeth Clarke] on 27 October 2017, stating: ‘Stanley, I have not heard back from you. It was my sincere intention to resolve this outstanding rent owed to my family estate as amicably as possible. Clearly from your actions, and inactions, this is not your intention. In this regard I will advise the estate to proceed with whatever actions it deems fit in recovering these monies.’ ”

This was the reaction of Stanley Felix: “Liz, contrary to your conclusion re outstanding rent, it is not and never has been my intention not to resolve the outstanding issue. In this regard, could you advise as to the outstanding amount, and what would suffice by way of settlement?”

“At paragraph 7 of his draft defense,” the Supreme Court justices observed, “the appellant denies he admitted the debt or that he rented the premises. He contended that his communication with the first respondent was in his capacity as chairman of the St.Lucia Labour Party Castries Central Constituency Group. However, counsel for the respondents emphasized that the issue before the court is one concerning a judgment in default of defense. No defense having been properly filed, the court is constrained to consider the claim on its face. To interrupt prescription under Article 2088 of the Civil Code, there must be a clear and unequivocal admission of liability to pay what is alleged to be owed. All that is required is a statement by the debtor acknowledging the existence of some outstanding amount owed to the creditor. The amount of that debt must be quantifiable or capable of ascertainment by capitulation or from extrinsic evidence.

“Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the first respondent’s WhatsApp message on 27 October 2017 to the appellant is an unambiguous demand for the payment of arrears of rent. The appellant’s response acknowledges the rent is due and queries the amount due and how it can be settled . . . He did not say in the correspondence that the arrears were due from a third party. This was raised for the first time in the draft defense lodged almost three years later.” The justices were “satisfied that there was an acknowledgment of the debt.”

As for his having a real prospect of defending his claim: “In his draft defense he denied he was a lessee of the respondents but admits he, along with several other persons, accessed the respondents’ premises for short periods of time in 2011 and 2016 on the invitation of the then representatives of the St Lucia Labour Party Castries Central Constituency Group. He denies he paid $4500 as a security deposit or any deposit or any month’s rent. Further, that he cannot admit or deny whether the $4500 was paid and put the respondents to strict proof that the payment was made and by whom.

“He admitted in paragraph 62 of the draft defense that he paid $5000 in cash to Leo Clarke, the husband of the first respondent, not as rent but as his contribution toward having used the premises as his campaign headquarters during the 2011 elections. He denies that he admitted the debt when he spoke with the first respondent and states that any conversation with her was simply an attempt to maintain good relations with her, her husband and members of the St Lucia Labour Party . . .”

The justices of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and remitted the matter to a judge master of the high court for the assessment of arrears of rent for the period October 2012 to June 2016, the assessment of pre-judgment interest for the period January to June 2018 and the consequent variation of the judgment and awarded costs to the respondents in the sum of $400, being two-thirds of the amount awarded in the lower court, discounted by 20 percent to reflect the appellant’s partial success, and awarding costs on the appeal to the respondent to be assessed by a judge of the high court if not agreed within 21 days.

The Appeal Court justices—Paul Webster (he wrote the judgment), Gertel Thom and Mario Michel—cited precedents including: First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Ltd v The Roserie Company Limited and others; Bradford & Bingley pic v Rashid; Network Construction Maintenance and Rehabilitation Ltd et al v Cable & Wireless (St. Lucia) Ltd; the Attorney General of the Federation of St. Christopher and Nevis v SKN Choice Times Limited and Dufour and others v Helenair Corporation Ltd.  

By the way: Justice Mario Michel was, until the 2006 general elections, a frontline St. Lucia Labour Party official. In 1997, following a particularly bitter campaign, he took away from Julian Hunte parliamentary control of the Gros Islet constituency. He would serve for two terms as Minister for Education, Youth and Sports and Human Resource Development under Minister Prime Kenny Anthony. In 2003 he had piloted some of the most controversial bills debated in the House, among them Section 361 that made publishing a false statement about an undefined “public interest” an indictable offence that carried a two-year prison sentence for careless journalists. Also Section 86, which related to varieties of murder and capital punishment.

Then there was the highly contentious question of abortion, which would be, as Michel put it, “lawful if administered in accordance with Clause 166 of the Criminal Code.” He also placed before the SLP-dominated House “new provisions under which the court may not grant bail and these include where a person is charged with murder, treason or other offences under the Firearms Act.” On the occasion Michel had famously informed the House of “another significant amendment to the Criminal Code” which provided that “where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed, the courts can no longer impose a sentence lesser than the mandatory minimum.” He added that the government’s intentions had been “violated by the courts” but the latest amendment to the Criminal Code “should remove any such discretion on their part.” (The cited amendments were later declared unconstitutional!)

 Before he became a Supreme Court judge, Michel had for several years served Helenair Corporation as the airline company’s legal eagle and secretary until, overloaded with debts and lawsuits, Helenair fell out of the sky. Predictably, the day’s government had little trouble persuading a 16-1 parliament to guarantee a $4 million bank loan to benefit the bankrupt airline. Although the Helenair bill also received the Senate’s green light, it was no easy journey. In all events, with local banks adamantly refusing to cooperate, Helenair crashed amidst a storm of scandalous revelations. (See my book Lapses & Infelicities, available locally and from Amazon.) At time of writing, the unconfirmed word from apostles of a recently arrested and charged local soothsayer suggests Michel’s future may be connected to the advertised vacant position of Chief Justice. In the meantime, the Philip J. Pierre government has hired a family member to play the role of governor general. He is the son of deceased George F. L. Charles, considered by members the father of the St. Lucia Labour Party, if not of the nation! 

As for Stanley Felix, also a lawyer, in 2021 he was self-advertised as the Labour Party’s candidate for Castries Central, until Nomination Day, when it turned out he’d had a change d’avis in the best interests of Richard Frederick’s effectively unopposed candidacy. If some saw Felix’s about face as a knee to the SLP’s neck, they soon had reason to think again when it was announced, following the party’s 13-2 landslide victory last July, that the new President of the Senate was none other than the vacillating Stanley Felix. To borrow from science fiction writer Emma Bull: “Coincidence is the word we use when we can’t see the levers and pulleys.”

Meanwhile, Liz Clarke, the SLP’s perennial general secretary Leo Clarke’s wife, has returned to Washington D.C. and the ambassadorial position she held there until her appointment was terminated by the deputy governor general soon after Allen Chastanet replaced Kenny Anthony as prime minister in 2016. Her wrongful-dismissal lawsuit against the new government was finally dismissed by the Appeal Court in March 2022.

Perchance you’re wondering, dear concerned reader, about Senator Stanley Felix’s political horoscope, it is unlikely a demand will be made for his removal—even by the opposition. And not only because such demand wouldn’t stand the smallest chance of success before a House majority of 15-2 that can be counted on always to vote in perfect harmony. In Saint Lucia, parliamentarians and senators, regardless of how dishonorable their conduct in or outside the precincts of the House, can always count on the unstated till death­­ (or the voting public) do us part guarantee of employment. Then again, the Speaker recently talked about the undead Privileges of the House committee. We shall see soon enough if in his peculiar circumstances he dares to walk the walk. Besides, Stanley Felix has never been on the SLP’s MVP honor roll!