DLC Investments Limited and another (Appellants) v Bahamas Resolve Limited (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0014

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

DLC Investment Ltd and Donald Cooper

Respondent(s)

Bahamas Resolve Ltd

Issue

Did the courts below fail properly to consider all the evidence in: (1) granting a mortgagee an order for vacant possession over a defaulting mortgagor’s property; and (2) ordering the mortgagor to pay a sum into court before granting an extension of time for permission to appeal that vacant possession order?

Facts

On 26 July 2005, DLC Investments Limited (“DLC”) mortgaged certain properties to a bank. Donald Cooper was DLC’s mortgage guarantor. DLC and Mr Cooper are the Appellants on this appeal. In 2014, the bank transferred the mortgage to Bahamas Resolve Limited (“BRL”). BRL is the Respondent to this appeal. DLC defaulted on the mortgage. On 3 February 2021, BRL brought proceedings against the Appellants, seeking an order for vacant possession of the mortgaged property. On 15 April 2021, the Appellants offered to pay BRL $1.75m to settle the outstanding mortgage debt (c.$4.95m). BRL refused. On 22 April 2021, the Supreme Court of the Bahamas (“SC”) made the order for vacant possession, but deferred it for 21 days to allow the Appellants to pay the mortgage debt instead. They did not. On 10 November 2022, the Appellants sought permission to appeal (“PTA”), and a stay of, the 22 April 2021 order. The SC dismissed these applications on 28 December 2023. On 13 February 2024, the Appellants sought PTA from the Court of Appeal (“CA”) itself. Being out of time to do so, they also applied for an extension of time (“EOT”). On 29 May 2024, the CA ordered (with written reasons to follow) that the Appellants must pay $1.75m into court within 28 days, or their EOT (and therefore also the PTA) application would be dismissed. The Appellants made no payment. On 4 July 2024, the CA’s written reasons for the 29 May 2024 order were sent to the parties. Later that day, a CA hearing was held, at which the Appellants offered to pay $50,000, rather than the ordered $1.75m. The CA dismissed the Appellants’ EOT application, on the basis that the Appellants had not paid sum it had ordered. On 11 November 2024, the CA refused the Appellants PTA to His Majesty in Council on the basis that they were, again, out of time. The Appellants had had 21 days to seek PTA against the 29 May 2024 order, but had not done so until 25 July 2024. The Appellants now appeals to His Majesty in Council directly.

Date of issue

17 February 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top