The Privy Council has provided its reasoning behind its decision to reject the appeal of the Bimini Blue Coalition (BBC) against lifting an injunction against Resorts World Bimini (RWB), holding that there was, "no error of law or perversity of fact in the judge's decision" in the Court of Appeal.
BBC sought to prevent RWB from continuing the controversial dredging of a proposed 1,000-foot ferry pier and man-made island, arguing that it posed catastrophic risk to Bimini's marine environment.
However, the Privy Council yesterday presented its written judgment, which held that the permit granted to RWB by the Department of Physical Planning (DPP) was valid.
"The judge concluded that on the evidence it was arguable that the conditions necessary to be complied with either had been or were being addressed to the satisfaction of the DPP," stated the judgment, delivered by Lord Toulson.
"The Board rejects (BBC attorney) Ms. Jordan's argument that the judge erred in law in his approach to the developers' application to set aside the injunction... The purpose of granting a short injunction, with permission to apply to the Supreme Court to set it aside, was to preserve the position until such evidence was placed before the court which had the primary responsibility for granting or refusing interim injunctions."
The Board granted an interim injunction against the dredging when it was presented with a purported permit granted overnight to the developers by the DPP under the Conservation Act on May 23.
The Board noted that while, "there was no suggestion that the document was a fabrication... there was no written statement from anyone to verify it or to explain how it came into existence".
Despite the interim injunction on the dredging due to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the permit, the judge eventually concluded that the permit granted to the developers under the Conservation Act was genuine.
The Board noted: "One matter of central significance was whether the provisions of the Conservation Act applied to the developers' activities. The majority of the Court of Appeal had concluded as a matter of interpretation that the Act did not apply; the dissenting judge considered that it did apply.
"On the question which caused the judge the greatest difficulty, that is, whether the developers were fully complying with the conditions of the licence, the Board rejects the suggestion that his approach or conclusions were perverse.
"He was entitled to conclude that the developers were at least arguably complying with the necessary conditions, and he was properly entitled to take the evidence from BEST (Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology Commission) into account in reaching his ultimate decision whether to set aside the injunction."
The judgment is the latest development in the ongoing cruise ship terminal feud. Earlier this week, Justice Anita Allen ruled that the securities costs owed by BBC to RWB and the government if it was to continue in its efforts to seek a judicial review of the project would be reduced by over 50 percent from $650,000 to $315,000.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian