in a ruling dated October 13, Supreme Court Justice Darron Ellis dismissed the action brought by Ashley Reid-Pascarella and Jeffrey Pascarella against West Bay Management Limited, which operates Sandals Royal Bahamian Spa & Resort Offshore Island, bringing the proceedings against the resort operator to an end at the Supreme Court level without a determination of the underlying assault allegations.
The ruling represents a victory for the resort operator in a legal dispute stemming from an incident during the couple’s destination wedding celebrations in April 2016. It also addresses the enforceability of contractual restrictions imposed on resort guests and the statutory deadlines governing personal injury claims in The Bahamas.
Although the court rejected the resort’s contractual provision requiring lawsuits to be commenced within one year, Justice Ellis determined that the couple’s claims were nevertheless barred under Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1995, which establishes a three-year period for actions involving personal injury.
The judge concluded that the limitation period applied even though the couple had framed part of their case as a breach of contract, which they argued should attract a longer six-year limitation period.
The court found that the nature of the damages being sought, rather than simply how the claim was described, determined which statutory limitation period applied.
The ruling means the resort operator will also be entitled to recover legal costs associated with the proceedings, with both parties directed to seek agreement on the amount within 21 days.
Justice Ellis made clear that the dismissal was based on the statutory limitation period and did not constitute a finding on whether the alleged assault occurred or whether the resort bore any substantive liability.
According to the judgment, Reid-Pascarella alleged that she was indecently assaulted by the butler assigned to the couple during their stay at the resort in April 2016.
The couple sought damages for alleged psychiatric injury, consequential financial losses and recovery of expenses associated with their wedding package.
However, the legal action was not commenced in The Bahamas until October 14, 2020, more than four years after the alleged incident.
Sandals relied on contractual provisions requiring guests to provide written notice of certain claims within six months and commence legal proceedings within one year. It also argued that the couple’s action was prohibited by the statutory limitation period.
The couple challenged the enforceability of those contractual restrictions, maintaining that their claims for breach of contract should be governed by the ordinary six-year limitation period.
In examining the contractual provisions, Justice Ellis found that the one-year requirement could not be enforced to restrict liability for personal injury or certain breaches of contract protected by Bahamian consumer protection legislation.
The court also determined that the resort had not established the reasonableness of the one-year restriction, which created a significant imbalance in the non-negotiated consumer contract.
However, the judge distinguished that provision from the requirement for guests to provide written notice of a potential claim within six months, finding that the latter was reasonable as a means of facilitating a prompt investigation.
The court further determined that delivery of the resort’s terms and conditions through authorised travel intermediaries was sufficient to communicate those terms to the couple, even if they had not personally read them.
On the central question of whether the action was filed within the legally permitted timeframe, Justice Ellis concluded that the alleged psychiatric injury constituted personal injury under Bahamian law.
He determined that the three-year limitation period applied to both claimants, notwithstanding the inclusion of contractual claims and consequential financial losses.
The judge found that the relevant facts were known to the couple in 2016, with the alleged psychiatric injury known no later than May of that year.
Consequently, the three-year statutory limitation period expired no later than May 2019, more than a year before the Bahamian proceedings commenced.
The court also found that no grounds had been established to postpone the limitation period on the basis of disability, fraud, mistake or deliberate concealment.
The judgment also upheld the enforceability of the resort guest registration provision selecting Bahamian law and the exclusive jurisdiction of Bahamian courts.
The decision follows several years of legal proceedings involving the couple and the resort operator. In March 2024, another Supreme Court judge rejected the couple’s attempt to strike out portions of Sandals’ defence, finding that the disputed issues required determination through further proceedings.
Justice Ellis concluded: “Although the contractual one-year commencement condition is unenforceable, the action is statute-barred under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1995.”
He further ordered that the couple’s action against the resort operator be dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant.
The parties have 21 days to agree on the amount of legal costs. If no agreement is reached, the resort operator must submit its claimed costs and supporting documentation for the court’s determination.