High Court Delays Ruling on Compensation for Former Hilton Barbados CEO Henderson Williams

The High Court on Tuesday deferred its ruling on the financial compensation the state-owned Needham’s Point Holdings – owners and operators of the Hilton Barbados Resort – must pay its former chief executive, Henderson Williams, following his termination in April 2019.

After hearing closing arguments from Williams’ lawyer, Hal Gollop SC, Justice Michelle Weekes informed the parties that she would deliver her judgment later on the level of damages that Needham’s Point Holdings must shell out to its ex-boss.

Gollop, who appeared in association with attorney Neil Marshall, told the court that from the outset of the trial, “it became unmistakably clear, that counsel for the defendants, had failed to appreciate that this is an application for a judicial review.”

“That failure,” the senior counsel said, “has subsisted right to the end, when counsel made her submission last month. This matter was brought against the defendants following their decision to terminate his employment as Chief Executive Officer, and the action being one of a judicial review, the court is being urged to examine the process, which the defendants employed to execute their decision to terminate that employment and not the decision itself as to its correctness or otherwise.

“[The company is] still labouring under that misappreciation of the difference between an application for a judicial review and an appeal of a decision.”

He suggested that the failure was “most startlingly demonstrated” in the conclusion of the defendants’ submission.

Quoting from Needham’s Points arguments, Gollop said: “In light of the foregoing, the defendants urge this honourable court to find, firstly, that the failure to plead and/or particularise exemplary damages, is fatal to the claimant’s claims to be awarded exemplary damages.

“Secondly, the defendants contend that the only cause of action pleaded in in the claimant’s claim is breach of contract for which exemplary damages do not apply. The claimant ought not to be permitted to introduce a new cause of action which was not pleaded during the course of the trial.

“Finally, the defendants submit that the facts of the instant case, will not, in any event, warrant an award of exemplary damages.”

But Gollop again dismissed those arguments, reiterating the defendants’ “failure” to grasp the difference between the company’s decision to fire his client and a judicial review of how it was done.

Singling out the defendants’ submission that the claimant’s legal team should not be allowed to introduce a new cause of action that was not pleaded during the trial, Gollop contended that the requirements that called for a pleading are irrelevant in judicial review applications.