MoBay court tosses defunct company’s multimillion-dollar rent claim

The Montego Bay Parish Court recently struck down a multi-million dollar claim brought by SBV Company Limited and Arla Vernon-Gordon against their former tenant Karett Brown, operator of a supermarket and deli.

SBV had filed an action to recover US$22,000 (approximately J$3.5 million) in outstanding rent.

The plaintiffs also claimed costs and attorney’s fees, arguing that Brown refused to leave the premises after being served notice to vacate.

However, matters escalated with the defendant alleging loss of electricity which negatively impacted her business.

In the aftermath, Brown vacated the property after being served notice to quit in July 2025.

Attorney-at-law Maurice McCurdy, who represented Brown, told The Gleaner it was discovered that SBV Company Limited had been “struck from the records”.

According to the Companies Office of Jamaica’s website, removing a company from the Register of Limited Companies effectively means the company has been dissolved and ceases to exist as a legal entity.

A company can be struck off voluntarily if the company’s directors request removal, because the business has ceased trading and has no assets or liabilities

A company may also be involuntarily struck off the records if the entity fails to file annual returns for several successive years, does not disclose beneficial ownership information or has moved and the Companies Office can no longer locate its registered office.

McCurdy applied to the Court for SBV’s claim to be struck out for irregularity because “it was no longer a legal person in law”.

“We filed an application for the court to make a declaration that SBV Company Limited, being removed from the Companies Act of Jamaica, is no longer a proper party to sue or be sued in its own name,” McCurdy told The Gleaner.

McCurdy also told the Court that it is a criminal offence, subject to a daily fine, for a dissolved company to continue to use the word “limited” at the end of its name after being dissolved.

He argued that the contract being entered into in the face of illegality means that the plaintiff (SBV) would not be entitled to enforce said contract.

The Court approved the application and struck out the claim while ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.

karen.madden@gleanerjm.com