1. Introduction
Behind Jolly Harbour's scenic golf course and appealing waterfront lies an intense legal battle that questions the very ownership of Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Limited (CDAL)—and claims millions of dollars in damages. This conflict revolves around Stuart Alexander Lockhart, an attorney and notary public, who asserts he was a director of CDAL, the purported "sole shareholder" of Jolly Harbour AG, and that he is owed substantial sums for alleged breaches of contract and "equitable fraud." To complicate matters, Lockhart has also lodged a caution on golf-course lands, challenging the legitimacy of CDAL's rights.
Case Information:
- Case: Lockhart v. Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Ltd. et al., Claim No. ANUHCV 2011/0721
- Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Antigua & Barbuda
- Relief Sought: Damages exceeding US$3 million (later stated as up to US$6 million in some references), declarations that Lockhart is or was a director of CDAL, and an injunction (including a freezing order) to protect assets allegedly at risk of dissipation.
Official Decisions:
- 2012.08.02 Lockhart v. Caribbean Developments Antigua et al.
- Stuart Alexander Lockhart (Applicant) v. Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Limited
2. The Parties & Core Allegations
A. Stuart Lockhart (Claimant / Applicant)
- An attorney and notary public, claiming:
- He was appointed a director of CDAL but was unlawfully removed
- He is the "sole shareholder" of Jolly Harbour AG "on trust for the second defendant"
- The defendants owe him large sums, either contractually (e.g., a promised 1% share of land sales) or under theories of "equitable fraud"
B. Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Ltd. (1st Defendant)
A company overseeing property management, sales, and development in Jolly Harbour. Lockhart contends he was once not only a director but also a key legal advisor to prospective conveyances.
C. Geert Duizendstraael (2nd Defendant) & Gaye Hechme (3rd Defendant)
Alleged by Lockhart to be directors or controllers of CDAL who orchestrated schemes—purportedly removing Lockhart without due process and withholding rightful fees.
Main Claims Include:
- Breach of Contract: He had an agreement to exclusively provide conveyancing services and/or to receive 1% of all land sales.
- Equitable Fraud: Allegations that a US$40 million "sale" to "Fantini" was a sham transaction (true value: ~US$10 million), designed to mislead him and third parties.
- Unlawful Removal: Lockhart contends he was removed as a director at a secret meeting he never waived his right to attend.
3. The Dispute Over Golf Course & Assets
A. Golf Course "Caution"
- Lockhart lodged a caution on property in Jolly Harbour, including the golf course lands, effectively challenging CDAL's ability to freely dispose of them.
- CDAL and its directors then sought to discharge or strike out this caution/injunction, asserting Lockhart's directorship ended long ago and that his claims have no real basis.
B. Freezing Order
- On June 22, 2012, Lockhart secured an ex parte freezing injunction, freezing assets of CDAL up to US$3 million.
- The Defendants soon applied to discharge the injunction, claiming material non-disclosure, that Lockhart had no real prospect of success, and that the sweeping freeze would cripple CDAL's operations.
4. Key Documents & Rulings
A. Claim Form & Amended Statement of Claim
- Lockhart's evolving claims total millions in damages, plus declarations that:
- He is a CDAL director
- He is the "sole shareholder"
- The Bearer Shares to Jolly Harbour AG belong to him
- Lockhart contends CDAL orchestrated sales behind his back, withheld promised payments, and engaged in "serial and deliberate breaches of contract."
B. Ex Parte Injunction
Lockhart argued, citing the Mareva principle (i.e., a "freezing order"), that there was a "real risk of dissipation of CDAL's assets," referencing allegations that "millions of dollars" from land sales were diverted to personal accounts overseas.
C. Application to Discharge
The defendants, led by Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC, insisted Lockhart misrepresented key facts. They contended:
- Lockhart was never truly a continuing director, having "agreed to resign" once Duizendstraael obtained certain licenses.
- If any directorship existed, it ended in 2006.
- The freezing order was disproportionate, risked crippling CDAL's day-to-day business, and lacked full disclosure.
5. The US$6 Million Damages Claim
Though Lockhart's initial case references a claim "in excess of US$3 million," some subsequent statements allude to the figure rising to around US$6 million, presumably to account for:
- Land Sales: 1% share of multiple conveyances allegedly never paid, especially the US$40 million "Fantini" deal (Lockhart calls it a sham).
- Director Removal Damages: Lost income, personal reputational harm, or missed legal fees from conveyancing if CDAL had used him exclusively.
- Breach of "Compromise Agreement": A 2007 settlement attempt providing him US$73,500 plus exclusive legal instructions, which Lockhart says never materialized.
6. Legal Theories & Precedents
A. Equitable Fraud
Lockhart uses "equitable fraud" to describe how the Defendants allegedly manipulated land sale figures and misled him. He claims the defendants made "false representations... intended to cause him detriment," awarding him grounds for damages.
B. Breach of Contract & Tortious Interference
He sues for breach of direct agreements, plus "wrongful direct or indirect intervention" by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in performance of these agreements.
C. Director Rights
Under corporate law, any removal of a director must follow the articles of association or statutory procedure. Lockhart claims that a "purported extraordinary meeting" did not meet legal notice requirements and that minutes were falsified.
D. Freezing Order Principles (Mareva)
Courts typically require:
- A "good arguable case"
- A real risk that assets will be dissipated, frustrating any eventual judgment
- Full and frank disclosure by the applicant
The Defendants' attempt to discharge the freeze alleged non-disclosure and that Lockhart's "good arguable case" was lacking.
7. Outcome & Current Status
While the linked decisions detail various rulings on the interim injunction, the entire substantive claim (directorship, shareholding, damages) remains or remained pending final adjudication. The extant documents reflect:
- CDAL strongly contests Lockhart's stance, insisting he never had rightful ownership or ongoing directorship.
- Lockhart maintains the opposite, seeking large damages plus recognition that CDAL's alleged "sham" transactions defrauded him.
This legal conflict highlights the unsettled ownership question regarding Jolly Harbour's golf course and other vital community assets—why a "caution" remains on or around the golf course property and how it hampers or clouds CDAL's ability to sell or mortgage these lands.
8. Implications for Property Owners & Prospective Buyers
A. Uncertain Title & Cautions
Any caution on the golf course or core property may slow or complicate property transactions. A buyer might need to clarify whether Lockhart's claim effectively restricts CDAL from free disposal.
B. Litigation Risk
The US$6 million damages claim suggests a significant potential liability. If Lockhart prevails, CDAL's financial resources could be severely impacted, potentially affecting routine services in Jolly Harbour (maintenance, security, or golf operations).
C. Corporate Governance Red Flags
Lockhart's allegations of clandestine meetings and sham transactions raise concerns about transparency. If proven, such governance issues might deter investor confidence or raise costs for owners via increased "community charges."
9. Conclusion
The Lockhart v. Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Ltd. litigation reveals deep fissures over who truly controls Jolly Harbour's main assets, including the golf course. With allegations of sham land sales, unpaid conveyancing fees, and an unlawful directorship removal, Lockhart's claims are no mere afterthought; they threaten millions in damages and challenge the basic premise that CDAL can freely manage or dispose of property.
For owners and prospective buyers, the key takeaway is caution—both literal (through registered "cautions" on land) and metaphorical (due diligence is essential). The case remains a prime example of how unresolved corporate disputes in a development can reverberate across the entire community, impacting property values, maintenance overhead, and overall market confidence.