Disbarred lawyer scores major victory

DISBARRED attorney-at-law Patrick Bailey has scored a major victory in the Supreme Court, which awarded him $16 million with interest in a lawsuit brought against him by real estate agent Stafford Dixon, arising from the sale of a property in St Catherine.

Dixon did not receive the amount he expected from the development of the property, and he contended that Bailey caused him heavy financial losses in that real estate dealing. He reported Bailey to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council and the police, who charged Bailey with conspiracy to defraud.

However, before Bailey was charged by the police, he agreed to pay Dixon $105 million as compensation for his losses. There was a payment schedule, and Bailey made two payments totalling $16 million but refused to continue payments on the basis that the 2007 agreement was made under duress as he was suffering from the effects of a major illness when he signed the agreement.

Dixon then filed the claim to recover the outstanding amount from Bailey. He said that in 1994, he retained Bailey to deal with the sale of the land. Dixon contended that the property, which is now a housing scheme, was transferred without his consent. He claimed that he should get $105 million from the sale but had so far received only $16 million.

Justice Crescencia Brown-Beckford, in handing down her decision last month, said the only issue that fell for the court’s determination was whether Bailey was induced by duress to enter into the consent agreement.

“I specifically decline to make any determination as to whether the title to the subject property was fraudulently transferred or whether the defendant was professionally negligent,” the judge ruled.

The judgment stated that against the background of the case, it was a reasonable inference that the threat of a criminal prosecution, so soon after Bailey suffered a debilitating illness, was a substantial cause of Bailey agreeing to pay these sums and to signing to the consent agreement and promissory note. The judge said the medical reports in evidence support the undisputed evidence of Bailey’s medical condition. It was the judge’s finding that “Dixon, who bears the burden of proof, has not satisfied the court on a balance of probabilities that it was not”.

The judge, in finding that Bailey signed the documents under the threat of criminal proceedings, ordered that all sums paid there under must be repaid.

In delivering the judgment, the judge apologised for the delay in the completion of the suit, which was filed in 2009. The case had to start over because the judge who had commenced the hearing had retired without completing the matter.

Bailey was disbarred in July last year for failing to hand over US$17,640 to a client.

He was also charged with conspiracy to defraud Dixon over the sale of the 22-acre St Catherine property and joint-venture development, but he was freed on a no-case submission in the Kingston and St Catherine Parish Court in 2018.

Attorneys-at-law Oswest Senior-Smith and Denise Senior-Smith represented Dixon.

Bailey was represented by attorney-at-law Carol Davis.

editorial@gleanerjm.com