NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal has denied petroleum distributor Rubis' request to appeal to the Privy Council a decision in which it slashed by 77 percent the damages award to a Bahamian homeowner after fuel leaks from a nearby gas station contaminated and polluted her property.

On October 19, 2023, the Court of Appeal reduced the compensation awarded to Lillian Russell, whose property was adjacent to Rubis' Robinson Road and Old Trail Road gas station, from $692,825 to $159,450. Former Supreme Court Justice Keith Thompson had granted the nearly $700,000 sum due to the hardship and "distress" Ms. Russell and her family suffered from two gasoline leaks. The first occurred in 1994 when the gas station was owned by Texaco (Bahamas). The second, more publicized leak, occurred in 2012-2013 just after Rubis had acquired Texaco's Bahamas business.

However, the Court of Appeal found that much of the damages award was based on the fallout from the 1994 leak and ruled that Ms. Russell's claim for this contamination could not be sustained as Rubis was not liable since it occurred under Texaco's ownership, while the action was also "statute barred" since it was not initiated within the six years immediately following the leak as required by law.

Despite the substantial reduction in the damages award, Rubis was dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's judgment and filed a Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and Stay of Proceedings to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal on November 9, 2023.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal stated: "The Court has determined that the Applicant in this matter is not entitled to leave 'as of right.' The Applicant can only be granted leave at the Court's discretion. The onus is on the Applicant to identify the points of law of general public importance, and the Applicant has failed to do so. It is incumbent on the Applicant to provide the point of law of public importance, as it is not the responsibility of the Court to identify them on behalf of the Applicant. The Court is not satisfied that there are any points of law of public importance in which they can refer to the Privy Council for an Appeal from the decision of this Court."

Click here to read more on the Eye Witness News website