Willock refusing to pay $77K legal fees for failed court injunction

House of Assembly Speaker Julian Willock has argued that he should not be held legally responsible for the tens of thousands of dollars in court fees racked up from a failed Hight Court injunction he instigated. The Speaker filed an injunction weeks ago to prevent three attorneys – Rhea Harrikisson, Andrew King and Bilal Rawat – from continuing as participants in the ongoing Commission of Inquiry unless they were properly called to the bar in the BVI, in accordance with the law. But Willock failed, in the first instance, to request the necessary permission from Attorney General (AG), Dawn Smith to bring the matter to court. He belatedly sought her permission after being instructed by the court to do so but the AG reportedly ignored his request which was done in haste. This subsequently led to the Speaker withdrawing the injunction. With the injunction now torpedoed, the court has asked Willock, along with the defendants named in the matter (including the AG), to state their respective positions as it relates to legal fees on the matter. In the assessment of costs, the three main defendants claimed that they had incurred $71,388.59 in expenses, while AG Dawn Smith assessed her own costs in the matter at $6,084.00.

Arguments not convincing

Meanwhile, Willock’s attorney at the Silk Legal law firm, Daniel Fligelstone Davies, argued that the Speaker should not be held responsible for the costs in the matter because he brought it before the court as an administrative action which was a matter of public interest in the first instance.

Secondly, Fligelstone Davies argued that there should be no costs decided because the BVI government was paying Willock’s legal fees and would be responsible for any liability for the legal costs of other parties.

Willock’s attorney further submitted that there was no point moving monies from one government pocket to another government pocket.

But Justice Adrian Jack was not persuaded by any of Davies’ arguments, ruling instead that Willock’s action was not brought before the court as a matter of public interest, but rather, as a private law action.