A High Court judge has thrown out a Jolly Harbour homeowner’s attempt to stop the company that manages the gated community from calling him a non-payer and using that label against him in court.
The judge dismissed the application by Cyprian Kowalczyk, who owns a property within Jolly Harbour, after finding that he had not met the legal requirements for the emergency court order he sought.
The ruling, delivered on April 2, does not settle who is right in the underlying dispute which is to be decided at a full trial over whether Kowalczyk is legally obligated to pay community charges to Caribbean Developments (Antigua) Limited, the company that runs Jolly Harbour.
At the heart of Kowalczyk’s application was his concern that CDAL, as the company is known, was branding him a debtor and non-payer in documents and in a separate court case, before a judge had even ruled on whether he owed the money in the first place.
He asked the court to stop CDAL from making those claims anywhere, to stop the company from threatening to cut off his water, electricity and sewage, and to prevent CDAL from using the non-payment issue against him in related proceedings.
CDAL, represented by Dr. Errol Cort, pushed back, describing the application as an attempt to gag the company and stop it from presenting its own case in court.
The company told the court that Kowalczyk had been paying the community charges without dispute until February 2025, when he stopped, and that despite this, CDAL had continued providing him with essential services.
The High Court judge found the application failed on three counts.
First, Kowalczyk refused to provide what is known as an undertaking in damages, a standard legal promise that if the court grants the order and it later turns out to have been wrong, the applicant will compensate the other side for any losses caused.
Kowalczyk argued this was unfair given that CDAL was a company with millions of dollars in assets while he was a private individual representing himself.
The judge acknowledged the point but said it was not enough.
Going further, the judge found that even if the undertaking issue were set aside, the balance of the case still favoured CDAL as granting the order would have prevented the company from making its arguments in court, which the judge said was not an appropriate use of emergency injunctive relief.
Courts, the ruling noted, must be free to decide what arguments can be heard before them without being restricted by orders from a separate proceeding.
On the question of utility disconnection, the judge found there was no real evidence that CDAL was about to cut off Kowalczyk’s services, noting the company had kept them running throughout the dispute.
Justice Williams also remarked on the bitter state of relations between the two sides, urging both parties to work on reducing the tension between them as the case continues. Kowalczyk was ordered to pay CDAL $2,000 in costs.
The question over whether the clause in Kowalczyk’s property agreement that requires him to pay community charges is actually binding on him as someone who bought the property rather than the original owner, remains to be decided.
This is none of my business. I’m not in their financial bracket so I will keep out
Question all residents should have is why they are paying $1563EC per month for services but the area is not maintained properly. Example sewage system needs replacing, security don’t do security just open barriers up and down, sea walls not repaired.
Also owners paying for a privately owned gym, pools and courts. And many other issues.
Kids illegally driving golf carts.
Owners deeds and covenants do not say they have to pay allot of extras CDAL are unlawfully charging.
CDAL want to reduce golf course from 18 to 9 holes to make money for.
CDAL has increased fees allot of questions CDAL refuse to answer.
Being poisoned by Mosquitoes fogging hundreds of times a year when the instructions say maximum of 26 times a year.
I can see that CDAL and their attorneys (for which they demand payments from me and other Jolly Harbour freeholders- making me pay for their cost of the litigation against me) are working fast to publish news about their “win”. A few corrections.
The judgement was announced orally only on April 2 and hasn’t been entered into the court registry yet because I have the carriage of the order and the written version hasn’t been served on me. The hearing was back in February 2026.
The application for interim injunction was not a “bid to silence” anyone. It asked for two things: (1) stop sending me extra-contractual monthly payment demands while the court decides whether CDAL has any legal basis to send them, and (2) don’t brand me a non-payer before a judge has ruled whether I owe anything. I also asked that CDAL not use alleged non-payment as an “unclean hands” argument in a separate proceeding while the very question of whether I owe anything is still pending before a judge in this claim.
The article says I “refused” to give an undertaking in damages. That is false. My sworn affidavit stated: “I am ready to give an undertaking if the Court so directs.” My written submissions stated the same. At the hearing I confirmed: “I of course am prepared to give an undertaking.” What I argued — correctly, per CPR 17.4(2) — is that the undertaking is a matter for the hearing, not a filing prerequisite. The rule says “Unless the court otherwise directs.” I was never asked to give one and refused. CDAL’s counsel mischaracterised this as a refusal, and the article has repeated it.
The judge accepted there is a serious question whether the payment clause binds resale purchasers at all. That goes to trial. This ruling decided nothing on the merits.
What the article doesn’t mention: at the February hearing, the judge himself proposed a compromise. Justice Williams asked: “Is there a possibility that you can send it every 90 days and just update it?” Dr. Cort replied: “I don’t see a problem with that.” Later Dr. Cort went further: “The application should be dismissed with costs. And notwithstanding that, I give you the undertaking that CDAL will only send him invoices every three months. Notwithstanding how this application goes because there’s no intention to harass him.” I agreed. The judgment arrived 49 days later in April with none of that in it.
I will be appealing the judgement.
Question all Jolly residents should have is why they are paying $1563EC per month for services but the area is not maintained properly. Example sewage system needs replacing, security don’t do security just open barriers up and down, sea walls not repaired.
Also owners paying for a privately owned gym, pools and courts. And many other issues.
Kids illegally driving golf carts.
Owners deeds and covenants do not say they have to pay allot of extras CDAL are unlawfully charging.
CDAL want to reduce golf course from 18 to 9 holes to make money for.
CDAL has increased fees allot of questions CDAL refuse to answer.
Being poisoned by Mosquitoes fogging hundreds of times a year when the instructions say maximum of 26 times a year.
I would ask the editor to remove the parcel number from this article. My name appears throughout and fully identifies me as the subject. The parcel number adds nothing editorially but publishes my residential address to the internet.
Under the Data Protection Act 2013, personal data should not be published in excess of what is necessary for the purpose. A land parcel number linked to a named individual is personal data. It is not necessary to report on a court proceeding.
Question all residents should have is why they are paying $1563EC per month for services but the area is not maintained properly. Example sewage system needs replacing, security don’t do security just open barriers up and down, sea walls not repaired.
Also owners paying for a privately owned gym, pools and courts. And many other issues.
Kids illegally driving golf carts.
Owners deeds and covenants do not say they have to pay allot of extras CDAL are unlawfully charging.
CDAL want to reduce golf course from 18 to 9 holes to make money for.
CDAL has increased fees allot of questions CDAL refuse to answer.
Being poisoned by Mosquitoes fogging hundreds of times a year when the instructions say maximum of 26 times a year.
For all interested in the charging practices of CDAL’s (Caribbean Development (Antigua) Limited) – currently owned by Sabana Holdings Ltd. (Sabana), beneficial owner is one Robert / Rob Gillespie – and whose directors are Mrs. Jamie Tarter and Ms. Melareen Jarvis-Christopher (who in turn is also a legal secretary at Cort & Cort- CDAL’s attorneys) and whose auditor is Standard Accounting Solutions INC. owned by Christian Cort (son of Dr. Cort who runs Cort & Cort) – please visit http://jollyharbour.org
Perhaps someone will write an article about the sewage crisis at Jolly Harbour which I have been documenting – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHyraVoVqSA&list=PLTz1d80c5ObI6hyJ6fbSYxxWwjmyfH3F5 and which was already tackled here https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1423178411692796
I have a lot of interesting material for any willing journalist. For instance, I am in court with Development Control Authority tham in my opinion, completely disregarded the Physical Planning Act and produced a letter with multiple demonstrably false statements that have been used against me in court by the same CDAL.
Very interesting stuff.
WAW Interesting developments. So who wrong and who right and what missing….Oh boy
So the man in the story came to respond to the story here? Lol.
There are so many mischaracterizations in this hit piece that I don’t know where to start debunking. Both the hearing and judgement announcements were via Zoom, and there are details here that did not appear in the judgement, so I assume it’s a hit piece.
Jolly Harbour is not a condominium or managed community. It’s a collection of freeholds sold by CDAL, who owns the master parcel and purports to provide services and utilities. The latter is in breach of the Public Utilities Act— there is simply co agreement, no protection required, and given by the act.
The article states “property agreement,” but there is no property agreement— there is a restrictive agreement pursuant to section 94 of the Registered Land Act, which only allows registration of restrictions on the land use, not payments or service provision. The Act was modelled on Kenyan Land Law, which, interestingly, was also adopted in the Cayman Islands; however, they saw all the issues with it and amended it in 2017 or so to explicitly allow for payments in the restrictive agreements that run with the land.
All the interim injunction was trying to achieve was stoppying CDAL from sending monthly paymend demands for which there is no contract.
Another thing the article does not touch is this: I pay for my metered utilities, of course, and if the purported basic services that CDAL delivers are considered sewage, then it costs ca. EC$60/month/freehold, while CDAL demands over $1,500/mo…
The fees increased by 60% over 2 years while the basic services deteriorated— see my sewage spill videos.
I also have claims in the tune of EC$500k against CDAL, which is approximately 694 years’ worth of sewage service…
But sure, I tried to silence a company that in 2007 had EC$200m in assets; now it barely has EC$18m, but its parent— Sabana— has US$70m in assets, lol.
Those who know know.
Here is interesting article regarding Cort&Cort https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/br-recherche/wirecard-marsalek-braun-calvin-ayre-102.html
Thats a whole lot of nonesense if you ask me
Depends on who you ask I guess https://www.facebook.com/agerhanssen/posts/i-always-said-calvin-was-behind-the-wirecard-scandalfrom-aschheim-to-antigua-the/10162343687801447/