Business

Court orders company’s equipment released by downtown landlord

Jetline Simulation Bahamas can have its equipment back and restart its flight simulator at another location, though it must maintain the equipment in the event it could be used as a reward if the company loses its cases to its former landlord Neworld One Bay Street, Justice Neil Brathwaite has ruled.

The July ruling reveals that Jetline has been fighting Neworld in court after the company was locked out of its location at The Pointe – owned by Neworld  – where it had a three-year lease.

Jetline contends in the court documents that there were power issues preventing the company from earning revenue and therefore rent was not able to be earned.

Jetline was subsequently locked out of the space and the equipment then held by its former landlord.

The company took Neworld to court over the incident.

Neworld filed a counterclaim seeking damages for rental arrears and payments for electricity, interest and costs.

In December 2020, Justice Ruth Bowe-Darville ordered that Jetline was prohibited from removing its equipment from the space and awarded costs to Neworld.

However, Brathwaite agreed with precedent that showed that Jetline should not be made to pay rental arrears and considered that the company should be allowed to keep its equipment until the conclusion of the court matter reveals what should ultimately be done with it.

Neworld asked that Jetline be made to solely endure the cost of removing the equipment, storing the equipment and insuring the equipment.

However, Brathwaite disagreed.

“While the desire of the defendant (Neworld) to mitigate losses is understandable, I cannot accept that the plaintiff (Jetline) should be required to pay for the removal and storage of the items, merely to keep them available to satisfy any debts found to be owing to the defendant at the conclusion of these proceedings,” said Brathwaite.

“It would seem that the defendant wishes to preserve the ability to distrain, at the plaintiff’s expense, but without the plaintiff being able to also mitigate losses by reinvigorating the business if possible.

“In my view, the preferable course of action is that the items be removed at the expense of the plaintiff, who would be permitted to establish the business at a different location should they choose to do so, and with the express direction that the plaintiff will take no actions to dispose of the items or to diminish the value of the equipment prior to the conclusion of this matter.”

The justice found that the costs associated with the application should be offset, given that part of Jetline’s application was successful and part was not.

However, costs were rewarded to Jetline given the amendment of Neworld’s defense and counterclaim.

Show More

Chester Robards

Chester Robards rejoined The Nassau Guardian in November 2017 as a senior business reporter. He has covered myriad topics and events for The Nassau Guardian. Education: Florida International University, BS in Journalism

Related Articles

Back to top button