• Hotel maid lost out in Lockhart & Munroe split 

• Judge finds she sued wrong firm for ‘negligence’

• But orders Munroe’s new practice to repay $300

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A hotel maid’s bid to obtain financial redress from the British Colonial Hilton was scuppered by the break-up of a law firm then co-headed by a newly-elected Cabinet minister.

Margo Thompson had approached the now-dissolved Lockhart & Munroe law firm in an effort to hire Wayne Munroe QC, now minister of national security, to initiate legal action over injuries she suffered when the resort’s elevator plunged from the sixth to the ground floor during a November 2005 power outage.

Lockhart & Munroe ultimately filed a Writ of Summons against the British Colonial Hilton on October 24, 2008, claiming damages for personal injuries suffered by Mrs Thompson due to the elevator’s plummet. She was inside at the time.

However, the writ was never served on the downtown Nassau hotel within the 12 months before it became “statute-barred”, and nor was any attempt made to renew it before that October 23, 2009, expiry. This occurred amid a falling-out between Mr Munroe and his then-partner, Elliott Lockhart QC, the former Exuma MP, which resulted in Lockhart & Munroe’s break-up and the two going in separate directions.

Mr Munroe launched his own law firm, Munroe & Associates, in early August 2009. The file relating to Mrs Thompson’s case was ultimately transferred to Munroe & Associates, although there was “conflicting evidence” as to when this occurred.

The hotel maid subsequently paid Mr Munroe’s firm $300 to renew the writ on November 7, 2011, but Justice Indra Charles said the amount of time that had elapsed meant the action against the British Colonial Hilton was already “unrevivable”.

The resort’s attorneys, Lennox Paton, subsequently succeeded in persuading Supreme Court registrar, Marilyn Meeres, to strike out Mrs Thompson’s claim on August 23, 2013. The maid subsequently sued Munroe & Associates for “professional negligence” but Justice Charles, in a September 22, 2021, verdict ruled that she had selected the wrong target.

The Supreme Court judgment ruled that Mrs Thompson should instead have sued Lockhart & Munroe, or Messrs Munroe, Lockhart and Norwood Rolle in their capacities as the now-dissolved firm’s partners, because it - not Munroe & Associates - had carriage of the case when the initial 2008 case was allowed to expire.

But, despite finding that this mistake “brings an end to this unfortunate dispute”, Justice Charles made clear her sympathies lay with Mrs Thompson. For besides not ordering her to pay Munroe & Associates’ legal costs, Justice Charles also ruled that the law firm needed to reimburse the $300 it charged Mrs Thompson to revive the writ when it knew “the writ was statute barred and its validity could not have been renewed”.

“It is my firm view that I should depart from the usual order of awarding costs to the successful party, Munroe & Associates,” Justice Charles said. “I do so because Mrs Thompson, a layperson, brought this action in good faith as a result of the loss of opportunity to pursue her claim against British Colonial Hilton.

“This loss was caused by the dissolution of the initial firm and the fall-out associated with the changing of offices, none of which could be attributed to Mrs Thompson herself.”

Also named in Justice Charles’ ruling is now-prime minister, Philip Davis QC. Mr Davis was engaged as the arbitrator to mediate the dispute between Messrs Munroe and Lockhart that arose from their split and, under his watch, it was agreed that all Lockhart & Munroe’s client files and accounts remain with Mr Lockhart unless the client submitted a written request that their case be transferred to Mr Munroe.

There is nothing to suggest that Mr Davis did anything wrong in relation to Mrs Thompson’s case, although the timing of her file’s passing to Mr Munroe’s law firm played a key role in what Justice Charles branded “an unfortunate case”.

“On or about November 2, 2005, Mrs Thompson, whilst employed as a hotel maid at the British Colonial Development Company, sustained personal injuries which she alleged occurred when the service elevator which she was in plunged from the sixth floor to the ground floor of the hotel during a general electrical power outage,” Justice Charles wrote.

“As a result, she suffered debilitating injuries requiring her to seek medical attention from doctors both here and in the US. As a result of her accident, she wanted to know what legal redress might be available to her against British Colonial. She approached the now-dissolved law firm of Lockhart & Munroe with the intention of engaging the legal services of Wayne Munroe.”

Mrs Thompson did not speak to Mr Munroe, but instead saw his then-associate, Jairam Mangra. She paid a consultation fee and retainer prior to to her action’s October 2008 filing against the British Colonial Hilton and its holding company.

Lockhart & Munroe was dissolved at end-August 2009, and Mrs Thompson’s action was never served on the hotel or extended. “Mrs Thompson’s file was transferred to Munroe & Associates, but there is conflicting evidence as to exactly when the file was transferred. At Munroe & Associates, she was unsuccessful in seeing Mr Munroe but she saw one of the associates of that firm,” Justice Charles added.

“Mrs Thompson then sued Munroe & Associates for professional negligence. She vehemently argued that, notwithstanding that she never spoke directly to Mr Munroe at either Lockhart & Munroe or Munroe & Associates, she was, at all material times, represented by him and that Munroe & Associates acted negligently resulting in the 2008 action being struck out.

“On the other hand, Munroe & Associates contended that it is not liable for her loss since she was represented by Lockhart & Munroe as opposed to Munroe & Associates when the negligent omissions occurred. Munroe & Associates says that they did not represent Mrs Thompson until November 23, 2011, when she engaged them to renew the writ.”

Mrs Thompson alleged that she was informed by Lockhart & Munroe in 2008 that Mr Munroe had taken her case file with him following the law firm’s break-up. One of his associates, Chernenka Rolle, was assigned to the matter and it was she who requested that $300 to revive the writ.

However, the hotel maid admitted that she only met Mr Munroe at a community meeting in 2012 at Government High School when he was running as an election candidate for the Democratic National Alliance (DNA). And Mrs Thompson only learned in 2013, when she visited Ms Rolle at Munroe & Associates, that her case had been thrown out and there was nothing more to be done.

Mr Munroe, though, denied taking Mrs Thompson’s file with him when Lockhart & Munroe broke up. He added that Munroe & Associates only took over the case on November 23, 2011, and said was never her attorney but merely supervised the junior attorneys with responsibility for the matter.

Backing Mr Munroe’s evidence, Justice Charles said it was “astonishing” for Mrs Thompson to assert he was her attorney despite never meeting him apart from the community meeting. “The short answer is that, by the time Munroe & Associates took over the 2008 action on 23 November, 2011, the writ was already unrevivable,” Justice Charles found.

“It seems clear to me that when the writ in the 2008 action expired and the action became statute barred, Lockhart & Munroe was still the attorney of record..... The relevant question is not who represented Mrs Thompson at the time when the 2008 action was struck out but rather ‘which firm was negligent?’ In other words, which firm failed to do the things that caused the 2008 action to be struck out? The short answer is Lockhart & Munroe.”