The Court of Appeal has confirmed a $2.57 million judgment against the law firm Wells & Wells, which belongs to former politician and outspoken political commentator Tennyson Wells and his wife and partner, Stephanie Wells. The court dismissed the appellants' arguments and slapped the firm with costs for both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases.

Ultimately, the appellate court did not buy the argument that Mr. Wells was "inactive" and that he and his wife were not served, according to the rules of the Supreme Court. The matter arose from an arbitration in award made in London in July 2004, in which Wells & Wells was ordered to pay Oshi Enterprises Inc. US$2,570,273.00, in addition to the legal and other costs of the respondent.

The background
Wells & Wells appealed the arbitrator's award to the Queen's Bench Division of the Commercial Court in the High Court of Justice in the UK, and lost, following which Oshi made a formal demand for the payment of all sums duly awarded.
That case was heard, judgment was entered for the respondent, the said judgment was not appealed and on July 24, 2013 it was filed in the Supreme Court as a judgment order.

Consequently, a summons was issued seeking leave to issue execution of the judgment order against Tennyson Wells and Stephanie Wells, as partners of the appellant and disclosure of the Wells' assets, even if held in trust for others.
Former Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett made the orders sought in the summons and granted the respondents their costs. It is against the order of the former chief justice that the present appeal was filed. Wells & Wells maintains, among other things, that the chief justice failed to consider the inactive status of Mr. Wells and also that Mr. and Mrs. Wells were not served in accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court, and that therefore, the claim is unenforceable against them.

The ruling
Writing for the court, Justice of Appeal Jon Isaacs said, "There is no error of principle contained in the chief justice's decision, nor is his decision unreasonable. In the premises, we agree that there is no merit to this appeal and the grounds on which it is based are unsustainable. The appellant's appeal is dismissed, and we affirm the decision of the learned chief justice."

Considerations
"There are a limited number of ways a person may avoid liability for the actions of his partners but those are laid out in the Partnership Act (the act). We have not been able to locate any authority to support the view that the term 'inactive' absolves a partner of his responsibility for the acts of his other partners. In any event, section 37 of the act states what constitutes notice to the world, to wit, an advertisement in the Gazette. There was no evidence produced to suggest any such notice in respect of Mr. Wells had been advertised in the Gazette," the court said.

The court also deemed the claim about not being served properly unsustainable.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian