Senior Counsel Lois Young has been restrained from representing, advising or in any way assisting Christine Perriott in her legal quarrel with Belize Telemedia Limited for compensation. That was the ruling handed down by the Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal this morning following more them five hours of submissions made on Friday by attorneys on behalf of Telemedia and Young respectively.
Telemedia had alleged to the Court that during claim 142 of 2007 (Christine Perriott versus Belize Telemedia Limited), Young had asked for disclosure of two letters written by herself in October 2004.
According to Telemedia’s Andrew Marshallek, the only way Young knew about those letters was because she had been privy to them during her eighteen-year tenure as the company’s legal counsel and Secretary.
Marshallek went on to maintain that the information was protected as confidential under attorney/client privilege and asserted that Young’s actions amounted to a breach of her legal duty to maintain confidentiality. Telemedia had taken the same application to Supreme Court Justice John Muria (who is presiding over claim 142) but on July 15th, 2008, Muria denied the request for an injunction against Young representing Perriott.
Telemedia subsequently appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. In his arguments to the panel of judges, Marshallek contended that Justice Muria had erred in law and misdirected himself in finding that there were no serious issues preventing Young from representing Perriott. According to Marshallek, his client believes that “there is a real risk that information that was revealed during tenure (with BTL) could be exposed by Lois Young.”
Young’s attorney, Fred Lumor, rejected that position, maintaining that “there is no risk of further disclosure. [This application] is not fair. There is no live issue.” Young herself said as much in an affidavit filed as part of the defence. She insists, “I have no confidential information.” Young also claims that she had invested more than 2,000 hours in preparing for the Christine Perriott case, only to have herself questioned just as the substantive trial is set to start.
After considering the submissions made by both sides over the weekend, this morning the Justices handed down their decision. Justice Manuel Sosa announced that 1) Telemedia’s appeal is allowed; 2) that the Court sets aside Justice Muria’s July 15th 2008 ruling which refused Telemedia’s application that Lois Young be restrained from in any way acting for, representing, advising or in any other way assisting Christine Perriott in claim 142 of 2008 in the Supreme Court, and 3) that the Court grants the application that was so refused by Justice Muria. The written reasons for the decision will be released at a later date.
The Justices have also ordered that Young pay Telemedia’s costs to argue the application in both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal proceedings. Initial estimates are that that figure will be approximately $30,000.
Following this morning’s ruling, Young said that she was “disappointed, very disappointed.” She continued to maintain that she is not in possession of any confidential information.
While it is likely that Christine Perriott will have to retain new legal counsel, Young contends that today’s development is only an interim order. She says BTL would have to seek a permanent injunction in the Supreme Court.
That permanent injunction will be dealt with before the substantive case starts before Justice John Muria. Readers should recall that Perriott is seeking compensation from Telemedia for what she believes was her wrongful dismissal from the company’s employ.
As for Marshallek, he feels the ruling should be a clear message to the public that the Court of Appeal is being vigilant in protecting attorney/client privilege.