PM’s business partner cleared to challenge IC tax findings, loses on conflict of interest | Lead Stories
Norman Brown, business partner of Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness, has secured court approval to challenge sections of an Integrity Commission (IC) report regarding tax compliance concerns involving a real estate development company linked to him.
Brown has however lost a bid to challenge the report’s comments that his chairmanship of two real estate state agencies that report to Holness poses “significant conflict of interest concerns”.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Althea Jarrett permitted Brown to seek judicial review of three paragraphs in the controversial report on Holness’ financial affairs. The paragraphs highlight assertions by Kevon Stephenson, the IC’s director of investigation (DI), about the tax filings of Estatebridge Development Limited.
Stephenson stated that Estatebridge, in which Brown is a shareholder and director, reported interest income for 2021 but filed nil tax returns for that year, suggesting no revenue-generating activity. He concluded that such conduct constituted “a fundamental undermining” of the country’s tax laws and referred the matter to Tax Administration Jamaica.
Brown, however, argues that the findings were unfair and breached principles of natural justice, as he was not given an opportunity to respond to the tax issues before the report was made public in September 2023.
The IC and Stephenson did not oppose Brown’s application on that matter but maintained that he is unlikely to succeed in having the paragraphs removed. They said the threshold for permission was “relatively low” and the case was important and needed to be resolved early.
Jarrett noted that Brown’s assertion of being unaware that he was under investigation remained unchallenged, stating it is “arguable with a realistic prospect of success that there was procedural impropriety in the process leading to this finding”.
However, Brown failed in his attempt to challenge the report’s observations about potential conflict of interest concerns arising from his roles as chairman of two state agencies— the Urban Development Corporation and the Housing Agency of Jamaica—that report to Holness.
Stephenson had stated in the report that Brown’s chairmanship raised “significant conflict of interest concerns” but acknowledged no direct evidence of impropriety.
Estatebridge was incorporated in July 2020, with one of its shareholders, until 2022, being Holness’ wholly owned company, Imperium Investment Holdings. Brown, along with one of Holness’ sons, and a sister are the current shareholders. Estatebridge is developing a property in St Andrew that was transferred to it under an agreement by a now shuttered offshore company that Holness owned.
Brown argued that the IC’s investigation report did not identify any matter before the HAJ or the UDC in which he or Estatebridge had any direct or indirect interest and that if he were aware of the probe, he could have clarified the mandates of the entities.
Brown also asserted that Estatebridge has no contracts with HAJ, UDC, or their parent ministry, which Holness leads as portfolio minister. He said he has not personally or through his other company, Pembrooke Trucking Company Limited, had a government contract since 2008.
He said the comments have caused significant embarrassment, distress, and serious harm to his personal and professional reputation. He also told the court that his household has “fallen into depression”, and that his wife and daughter have “withdrawn from the public to avoid stares and whispers”, according to the judgment.
However, the commission and Stephenson countered that the conflict of interest paragraphs are not judicially reviewable because “they do not form part of an adverse decision against the applicant or adversely affect his reputation”.
The judge affirmed that view, declaring that Stephenson did not say there was any actual conflict of interest and that Brown’s arguments that suggested that, were inaccurate.
“Read as a whole, I cannot see how the DI’s statements can be said to either adversely affect the applicant’s reputation or form part of an adverse decision affecting him,” said Jarrett. She dismissed an argument by Brown’s lawyer, King’s Counsel Symone Mayhew, that when the DI said there was no “direct evidence” of impropriety, it could mean there was “indirect evidence”.
The judge said the media comments on the issue also did not affect Brown.
“It seems to me that, a fair-minded, detached, and objective reader would not conclude that the DI’s statements, read as a whole, either form a component part of an adverse decision affecting the applicant or adversely affect his reputation.”.
Meanwhile, the court ruled against the businessman’s application for permission to seek certain declarations and a mandatory injunction to compel the IC to remove adverse findings about him from the report. She said the court’s permission was not needed for public law issues.
The court also said the DI is the author of the investigation report and not the IC, which sent it to Parliament for release. The DI is therefore the “natural respondent” in the judicial review claim against the paragraphs being challenged, the judge said in a ruling against Brown.
Brown’s application to appeal the unfavourable decisions was rejected. The first hearing in the judicial review claim has been set for February 25.
Brown’s challenge followed one filed by the prime minister, whose judicial review has been set to start on October 13.
The businessman is represented by King’s Counsel Symone Mayhew and Neco Pagan, while the IC and Stephenson are represented by attorneys Kevin Powell, Sundiata Gibbs, and Annay Wheatle.
link
