Wallace I Rolle and another (Appellants) v Town Court Management Co (Respondent) (Bahamas)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2023/0119

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Wallace I Rolle, (2) Krystal D Rolle

Respondent(s)

Town Court Management Co.

Issue

(1) Does the Law of Property and Conveyancing (Condominium) Act 1965 (the “1965 Act”) prohibit the delegation of the Respondent’s statutory duties? (2) Do “contributions” under the 1965 Act include management fees charged by a third party carrying out the Respondent’s statutory management functions? (3) Did the trial judge err in refusing to award interest on the damages awarded to the Appellants?

Facts

The Appellants are the owners of a unit situated in Block A of the Town Court Condominiums in the Bahamas. The Respondent was vested with the powers of management of the Town Court Condominiums. During the period between May 1996 and September 2010 (the “Challenged Period”), Real Estate International managed the Town Court Condominium. For a significant portion of the Challenged Period the statutory duties and obligations of the Respondent were carried out exclusively by Real Estate International in accordance with clause 17 of the Declaration of Condominium. In accordance with the original agreements for sale, Real Estate International charged fees for their “services” which during the Challenged Period were purportedly passed on to the unit owners as “contributions” for payment under the 1965 Act. The Appellants contended that (i) the Respondent’s purported delegation of its statutory duties to Real Estate International was impermissible under the 1965 Act, and (ii) any contributions or maintenance fees charged during the Challenged Period were improper, unenforceable and void. The trial judge did not make a determination in respect of these contentions. On the other hand, the trial judge awarded damages to the Appellants (but without interest thereon) in respect of the Appellants’ separate contention that the Respondent had breached its repair and maintenance obligations under clause 18 of the Declaration of Condominium. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Appellants now appeal to the Board.