The Supreme Court has heard allegations that the Progressive Labour Party leadership breached a court injunction during a party meeting on September 8.

It comes against the backdrop of a dispute within the ruling party over the selection process for its new leader next month.

Acting Chief Justice Shade Subair Williams granted an injunction on September 4, blocking the PLP from enforcing changes to membership approval and delegate selection processes.

However, an affidavit received by the court alleged that a measure was passed at a meeting held four days later with the intention of “nullifying” the injunction and ending a legal dispute over the amendments.

The move, said to be brought by David Burt, the Premier and party leader, was described as facing strong opposition from some who attended.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams said in written reasons dated Monday that the affidavit evidence disclosed a prima facie case of a serious breach of the injunction, while an affidavit from the party chairwoman had been “silent” on the subject.

The allegations came amid a legal dispute over a pair of addenda that were approved by the PLP’s central committee during an August 24 meeting.

One of the changes would prevent those who had publicly campaigned against the party in the past two general elections from being automatically accepted as party members.

The second addendum would require people to be members of the party for 12 months before becoming eligible to serve as delegates in leadership elections.

Curtis Dickinson, a former finance minister who is running for leadership against Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, argued that the changes went against the PLP constitution and bylaws.

He, along with four individuals who recently joined the PLP or renewed their membership, launched a legal action against the party’s chairwoman and its secretary-general and received an injunction to pause the changes until the case is tried.

However, Delroy Duncan KC, for Mr Dickinson and the appellants, argued that the September 8 special meeting of the central committee had breached the court injunction.

He alleged, based on an affidavit, that Mr Burt put forward a printed motion at the meeting for the purpose of authorising the convening of a special delegates conference.

The affidavit by Raoul Ming, who attended the meeting, stated that to the best of his knowledge and belief, the special delegates conference would consider the actions and decisions taken by the central committee on August 24 to determine if they were correct, and if they should be affirmed.

He wrote: “In proposing the motion, the party leader said that a special delegates conference was the best, fastest and most efficient means of addressing and, in his view, effectively nullifying or overcoming the effect of the court injunction.

“I understood him to mean that if the delegates affirm the decisions of August 24, the party would proceed based on those decisions notwithstanding the court injunction.

“I specifically recall the party leader saying words to the effect that if the delegates confirm the August 24 resolutions, this — being the legal proceedings — ‘all goes away’.”

Mr Ming said there was “substantial opposition” to the motion and that both he and Paula Cox, a former premier, spoke against it.

He said the motion was put to a vote and the acting chair declared that it had been carried.

Mr Duncan said the details of the alleged breach were sent to Mark Pettingill, counsel for the defendants, and that Mr Pettingill proposed a consent order stipulating that Mr Ming’s evidence was not accepted.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams wrote that the defendant’s affidavits were silent on the subject of the September 8 meeting and did not address any of the allegations that had been raised, despite being dated after they were raised.

She wrote: “Mr Ming’s evidence discloses allegations of breach of those obligations, and it was for the defendants to address these alleged breaches in the affidavit of compliance.”

Mr Duncan also alleged that the defendants had failed to fully comply with orders to provide several requested documents.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams said that the plaintiffs were still entitled to several documents, including a full text of the membership process and a full list of the present members of the PLP in the 12 preceding months.

She wrote that she had struck out two defence affidavits in their entirety and portions of a third that made reference to allegations of “membership manipulation, membership fraud and/or error”, stating that the evidence was of no relevance to the proceedings.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams wrote: “The issues for trial are primarily questions of law concerning this court’s construction of the PLP constitution and bylaws, and the question of the validity of the addenda.”

The judge also refused an order compelling the defendants to serve correspondence from Mr Dickinson to the central committee on the basis that the PLP, in the broader sense, is represented by counsel in the matter.

The matter is listed for trial on October 1 and 2.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers