By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Supreme Court judge has cleared the way for Junkanoo Beach's redevelopment by eliminating an injunction obtained by the developer/owner of a proposed bar for that location.

Justice Loren Klein, in a July 25, 2025, verdict revealed how Kevin Alexander Holden, owner of Funky Monkey, received conflicting and contradictory instructions from two separate government ministries on whether he should proceed with constructing his proposed bar at the site located just to the west of The Pointe development.

After Mr Holden was instructed by the Department of Physical Planning to halt all work on March 13, 2018, he sought and obtained a Supreme Court injunction blocking the Ministry of Tourism and Aviation, which has oversight of Junkanoo Beach, from "disturbing or interfering" with what little construction work he had performed so that the "status quo" was maintained.

However, the Attorney General's Office, acting as the Government's legal counsel, successfully persuaded Justice Klein to discharge the injunction and "strike out" both the Funky Monkey owner's original claim and bid to convert it into a standard claim form in compliance with the Supreme Court's new civil procedure rules.

Warren Johnson, in affidavit evidence on the Government's behalf, had asserted that the injunction had blocked the Ministry of Tourism and Aviation's redevelopment plan for Junkanoo Beach that included new vendor stalls compliant with Ministry of Works building and zoning standards. 

He alleged that the project was urgent due to "escalating criminal activity in the area" involving unregulated, unlicensed vendors and jet ski operators, adding that the latter in particular have been responsible for the issuance of numerous US travel advisories to tourists. Mr Johnson asserted that the redevelopment was designed to cure these Junkanoo Beach ills.

Justice Klein, in his verdict, said Mr Holden had applied to the Ministry of Tourism "some time in 2017" for a vendor's permit to develop and operate Funky Monkey as a bar at Junkanoo Beach. "He was granted permission by the Ministry of Tourism by letter dated January 15, 2018, authorising construction of the development to commence on January 18, 2018," the judge added.

"The approval was granted on the basis that the necessary permits and approvals from the Ministry of Works and any other governmental authorities had been approved, and the letter recited that an official of Ministry of Tourism 'confirmed' that the required documents had been submitted....

"The approval letter was promptly rescinded, however, by another e-mail from Ministry of Tourism dated January 17, 2018. It appears that the reason for this was that the building size had a larger footprint than indicated in the drawings for which approval was granted." Things then got confusing.

"To complicate matters, it appears that the claimant received a further e-mail from a parliamentary secretary in the Ministry of Tourism on 26 January, 2018, authorising him to 'reconvene your construction of which you were approved for by tourism on Junkanoo Beach'," Justice Klein said. The then-Ministry of Tourism parliamentary secretary would have been Travis Robinson, the ex-Bain and Grants Town MP.

"This was the somewhat confused state as to whether he had been granted 'permission' against which the claimant commenced framing up the Bar project on Junkanoo Beach," Justice Klein said of Mr Holden."As related below, however, this was only half of the story, as the claimant had applied for but was aware that he had not yet been granted any building permits.

"On 8 February, 2018, an inspector from the Department of Physical Planning of the Ministry of Works visited the site to investigate the construction and a 'stop order' was issued and posted at the site pursuant to section 48 of the Planning and Subdivision Act 2010.

"That section authorises the Town Planning Committee (TPC) to require anyone who acts in contravention of section 36 of the Planning and Subdivision Act, which requires a permit for building works, to take action to require the person to cease such development, demolish the building or cause alterations to be made."

Mr Holden was ordered on March 13, 2018, to “cease all work forthwith and await further instructions from the Department of Physical Planning” on the basis that the project was “being constructed without approval...of the Town Planning Committee".

"The visit by the Town Planning Committee also determined that the claimant had expanded the footprint of the proposed structure by installing additional poles for a proposed kitchen and bathroom facilities subsequent to the issuance of the stop order," Justice Klein wrote.

"This was communicated to the claimant’s then counsel by letter dated 3 August, 2018, and it was also indicated that the Town Planning Committee was awaiting the submissions of a detailed master plan (apparently from Ministry of Tourism/Ministry of Works) before it could make any decisions about the project.

"By October of 2018, the Ministry of Tourism observed that construction on the site had ceased and the project appeared to be abandoned and was overgrown, while the structure - some of which was partially hidden by undergrowth - posed a hazard to beach goers and passers-by. As a result, the Ministry of Tourism on 31 October, 2018, by e-mail requested the claimant to remove the structure that had been erected."

This prompted Mr Holden to launch his legal claim on November 1, 2018, which sought a Supreme Court Order requiring the Ministry of Tourism to produce and "deliver up" to the Town Planning Committee the Junkanoo Beach master development plan. He also obtained the injunction from then-Supreme Court justice Thompson.

However, despite various court dates - including ones for trial - being set, the dispute never moved forward. As a consequence, Mr Johnson alleged in his affidavit: "Due to the existing court injunction, the Ministry of Tourism is currently unable to proceed with its redevelopment plan for Junkanoo Beach, which is pending approval from the Ministry of Public Works.

"The redevelopment plan includes the construction of new vendor stalls that meet the Ministry of Public Works building standards and zoning requirements. This initiative is considered urgent in light of escalating criminal activity in the area, particularly involving unregulated local vendors and jet ski operators.

"These incidents have prompted several travel advisories from the US, highlighting safety and security concerns for visitors. The presence of unregulated vendors continues to pose risks, which the redevelopment aims to eliminate.”

The Government and Ministry of Tourism thus moved to strike out Mr Holden's action and injunction, while he sought permission from the Supreme Court to amend the claim. Justice Klein agreed with the Government that the claim did not pose any "cause of action" or legal issue to be addressed - it simply demanded that the master plan be disclosed. Thus it did not comply with the prevailing Supreme Court rules.

As for the injunction, Justice Klein ruled it would be "oppressive" to keep it in place because Mr Holden had not tried to move his case forward. And he also said he was "no longer interested in pursuing the development", representing "a material change in circumstances that would have justified the discharge of the injunction in any event".

"The claimant was given initial permission to commence the development, on the ostensible basis that he had obtained the requisite approvals from other government agencies. This was rescinded almost immediately when it became clear that his development exceeded the size which was agreed, and furthermore that he did not have the statutory approvals required," Justice Klein recalled.

"The net effect of this is that there was no representation on which he could have placed any reliance to commence construction. In this regard, it is clear that only the decision-makers under the relevant legislation are empowered to grant the planning or building approvals required, based on statutory conditions. These legal requirements cannot be overridden by permission from any other person or body.

"In fact, it is the claimant who seems to have falsely represented to the Ministry of Tourism that he had the necessary permits when he had only made application. Having made the application for the permits required by law, it could not seriously be argued by the claimant that he relied on any purported permission given by an official of Ministry of Tourism in the absence of the statutorily required permits."