By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS
Tribune Staff Reporter
Lmunnings@tribunemedia.net
THE Supreme Court has dismissed an American couple’s lawsuit against Sandals Royal Bahamian over an alleged sexual assault by their butler on the eve of their destination wedding, ruling that they filed the case after the legal deadline had expired.
Justice Darron Ellis ruled that Ashley Reid-Pascarella and her husband, Jeffery Pascarella, brought their case more than four years after the alleged incident in April 2016, missing the three-year deadline for personal injury claims.
The lawsuit, filed on October 14, 2020, sought damages from West Bay Management Limited, which operates Sandals Royal Bahamian Spa & Resort Offshore Island. The judge dismissed the action as statute-barred and ordered the couple to pay the resort’s legal costs.
However, the ruling did not determine whether the alleged assault occurred or whether the resort was legally responsible. The couple had booked a stay at the resort through travel agents for their destination wedding in April 2016, inviting about 70 guests to celebrate with them.
According to the claim, Ms Reid-Pascarella was indecently assaulted by Moral Adderley, the butler assigned to the couple during their stay. The alleged incident occurred on or about April 15, 2016, the night before their wedding.
Both claimants sought damages arising from the alleged incident and the resort’s alleged breaches of duty, including compensation for psychological injury, financial losses and the cost of their wedding package.
The couple’s lawsuit was previously reported to be seeking $30m in damages. A 2018 report by The Tribune said the claim included $10m for alleged negligence, nearly $10m for breach of contract and $10m for Mr Pascarella’s loss of consortium.
West Bay Management argued that the resort’s booking conditions required guests to give written notice of certain claims within six months and begin legal proceedings within one year.
The couple challenged those restrictions, arguing that they had not been properly brought to their attention and should not prevent them from pursuing their claims.
Justice Ellis found that the booking terms had been provided through the travel agents authorised to handle the couple’s arrangements. However, he ruled that the resort could not rely on its one-year deadline to override legal protections relating to personal injury claims.
The judge also found that the resort had not established that the one-year restriction was reasonable and enforceable. Instead, the court found that section 9 of the Limitation Act 1995 applied to the claims as pleaded, giving the couple three years to bring their case because it included claims for personal injury, including psychological harm.
The judge found that the relevant facts were known in 2016 and that the psychological injury was known by May of that year at the latest. The deadline had therefore expired by May 2019, more than a year before the couple filed their lawsuit.
The court also found no legal grounds to extend the deadline because of disability, fraud, mistake or deliberate concealment. Justice Ellis therefore dismissed the action because it was filed too late, noting that the decision concerned the time limit for bringing the case and did not decide the underlying allegations against the resort.