Holness appeal fails

The Court of Appeal has found no error in Supreme Court Justice Althea Jarrett’s decision rejecting Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ bid to strike out portions of an affidavit filed by a senior Integrity Commission (IC) official, ruling that the disputed material was relevant and neither scandalous, frivolous nor vexatious.

The ruling came as the appellate court dismissed an appeal brought by Holness, Imperium Holdings Limited, Positive Media Solutions Limited and Positive Jamaica Foundation against the IC, its executive director, Craig Beresford, and Director of Investigations Kevon Stephenson.

The appeal was considered on paper by Justices Frank Williams, Marcia Dunbar-Green and Frank Brown, with the judgment delivered by Justice Paulette Williams.

In dismissing the appeal, the court upheld all of Jarrett’s case management orders, finding that she had properly exercised her discretion and correctly applied the governing legal principles.

The court said Jarrett had “approached each issue with the requisite care and applied the governing legal principles in a manner that cannot be faulted”.

“Her conclusions concerning the relevance of the impugned affidavit evidence, the proper scope of the judicial review proceedings, and the effect of her unchallenged findings at the leave stage were firmly grounded in established authority,” Williams said.

“I do not find that any error of fact, law or principle on the part of the learned judge has been demonstrated. Accordingly, the appeal fails,” she added.

At the centre of the appeal was Jarrett’s refusal to strike out paragraphs 10 to 16 and paragraph 21 of an affidavit sworn by Beresford, who was the IC’s director of information and complaints when the affidavit was filed.

Counsel for the appellants argued that paragraphs 10 to 16 were irrelevant because they dealt with matters predating Holness’ 2021 statutory declaration, which is at the heart of the judicial review proceedings. They contended that the material was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and that any prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected those submissions, finding that the disputed paragraphs were a direct response to evidence given by Holness concerning statutory declarations submitted between 1997 and 2020. The judges said the passages detailed previous concerns surrounding those declarations, correspondence between Beresford and Holness, and how the issues were ultimately resolved.

Necessary context

Agreeing with Jarrett, the court held that the material provided necessary context to explain the reasonableness of Beresford’s decision not to certify Holness’ 2021 statutory declaration.

Applying Rule 26.3(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court found that the evidence was relevant, was not scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The appellate court also dismissed the challenge to paragraph 21 of Beresford’s affidavit. Although the appellants argued that the paragraph added nothing relevant to the proceedings, the judges found that it addressed issues raised in the claim, was neither oppressive nor scandalous, and should remain before the court.

The court also rejected challenges to Jarrett’s refusal to order disclosure of several unredacted documents after the IC asserted confidentiality over portions of the records. The appellants argued that the judge should have inspected the documents before accepting the commission’s claim of confidentiality and had misdirected herself on the principles governing disclosure in judicial review proceedings.

However, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants had failed to demonstrate that the documents were necessary for the fair determination of the proceedings or that the judge had erred in exercising her discretion. It affirmed that disclosure in judicial review matters is generally limited to material that is relevant and necessary to determine the issues in dispute and found that Jarrett had correctly applied those principles.

The judges also upheld Jarrett’s decision to strike out portions of the amended Fixed Date Claim Form, including the word “purported” and references suggesting that the IC had adopted the investigation report.

The court ruled that the amendments sought to relitigate issues already determined at the leave stage of the proceedings and that the judge had properly exercised her case management powers to prevent an abuse of the court’s process.

King’s Counsel Kevin Powell, who represented the IC and its officials, said the judgment vindicated the position taken by the respondents in the Supreme Court.

“The judgment justifies the position that the respondents had taken in the court below in relation to the evidence that they have put forward and in defending their rights to have that evidence before the court to determine the substantive issue in the claim,” Powell said.

He said the lifting of the stay would allow the substantive matter to continue.

“The ruling has set aside the stay of the proceedings, so the matter should proceed with the substantive claim and the respondents look forward to defending their challenge,” he added.

The appeal arose from Jarrett’s July 31, 2025 ruling on several interlocutory applications in the substantive judicial review brought by Holness and the three corporate entities.

The claim challenges the fairness and legality of the IC’s investigation into the prime minister’s financial affairs following concerns raised over his 2021 statutory declaration and transactions involving companies linked to him.

With the appeal dismissed and the stay lifted, the judicial review proceedings are set to resume in the Supreme Court, barring any further challenge by Holness.

The broader litigation, however, concerns a judicial review and constitutional challenge filed by Holness and the three entities in September 2024 against Beresford, Stephenson and the IC, contesting the fairness of the commission’s investigation into his finances.

Stephenson had raised concerns over alleged discrepancies in Holness’ 2021 statutory filings and transactions exceeding $470 million involving companies linked to him.

Holness has denied any wrongdoing.

The commission and its officials were also represented by King’s Counsel Michael Hylton of the law firm Hylton Powell, while Holness and the companies are represented by Henlin Gibson Henlin.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com