By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Trustees for the Automotive & Industrial Distributors (AID) staff pension fund have obtained a Supreme Court Order requiring a property tax delinquent to vacate real estate it acquired for $1.2m.

Justice Carla Card-Stubbs, in a September 4, 2025, verdict ordered that Earl Miller and his Miller Enterprises venture must leave a 2.37-acre site at the junction of Tonique Williams Highway and Knowles Drive (Bozine Hill Road) that was previously seized, and auctioned off, by the Bahamian tax authorities to recover unpaid real property taxes. They have until October 20, 2025, to vacate.

The AID staff pension fund trustees - the auto repair, parts and home furnishings retailer’s president, Jason Watson; his father, Harald; and Gerald Mortimer - argued in legal documents that Mr Miller’s continued presence amounted to “trespass” as he was now the property’s former owner and had no right to stay following its seizure by the Department of Inland Revenue/Public Treasury.

And his occupation meant the AID pension fund was being prevented from earning a return on its investment for the benefit of the plan’s several hundred members, as commercial leases had already been “arranged” that would see the location occupied by another AID outlet plus Nassau Propane and Native Brands.

Mr Miller, who has fought a long legal battle to prevent the Bahamian tax authorities from auctioning-off the location, argued that the sale to the AID staff pension fund was “invalid” and that he is “entitled” to stay and conduct business there.

The property already houses two businesses, Nassau Industrial Gas and Oil Max, the latter of which is known as Ron’s Auto. Mr Miller alleged he had “made every effort” to settle the outstanding real property taxes, but was never told the full amount said to be owed to the Department of Inland Revenue, and is now single, a senior citizen and was diagnosed with cancer in 2022.

But, despite Mr Miller alleging that he would “lose everything” if he was displaced by a Supreme Court Order, Justice Card-Stubbs found that the likely greater harm would be suffered by the AID staff pension fund because of the continuing monetary losses it would incur from not being able to develop or use the land it has acquired. As a result, she ordered Mr Miller to vacate within six-seven weeks.

AID’s pension trustees, disclosing that they signed a November 20, 2024, agreement to purchase the site for $1.198m following their auction success, asserted: “The claimants became interested in purchasing property for and on behalf of the Fund as an investment property, having regard to several income generating business opportunities which could be derived from the use of the property.

“The claimants selected the property for this purpose having seen the property advertised for sale.” The trustees added that the agreement for sale stipulated that the Fund was entitled to take vacant possession of the property once the purchase price was paid to the Treasurer, which occurred on January 27, 2025. The conveyance was stamped on February 22, 2025, and lodged for recording.

“Despite payment of the purchase price, completion of the sale and transfer of title by the Treasurer upon execution stamping and recording of the conveyance, the Claimants have been unable to obtain vacant possession of the property as the defendants [Mr Miller and his business] continue to unlawfully occupy the property to-date,” the AID pension trustees alleged.

“While the defendants continue to trespass and remain in unlawful possession and occupation of the property, the defendants are unjustly enriched by continuing to operate business and derive benefits and profits from commercial enterprise by unlawfully remaining in possession.

“As a result of the aforementioned, the defendants’ continued trespass and unlawful occupation of the property, the claimants have incurred loss and damage to the claimants’ reputation and business interests.” The AID pension fund trustees thus swiftly moved for an injunction preventing Mr Miller and his business from remaining on the property, and an Order requiring them to vacate.

The Fund asserted that the purchase price paid for the property “was more than reserved price set by the Treasurer - more than 70 percent of the assessed value of the property”. But Jason Watson, in an affidavit, asserted that when he visited the site on February 7, 2025, with the chief valuation officer and Department of Inland Revenue officials, Mr Miller “refused to give vacant possession”.

“The defendants’ continued unlawful occupation of the property, which deprives the claimants of the use and benefit of the property which they now legally and beneficially own, has jeopardised the trustee- beneficiary relationship as members of the Fund now have to be concerned with the feasibility of the investment which has so far not earned the Fund any income as intended,” the Fund added.

“The defendants’ continued unlawful occupation of the property has also jeopardised the customer relationships which were expected to flourish as a result of the arranged commercial leases with Native Brands, Nassau Propane and AID Ltd.

“Quite apart from the income-generating possibility and the loss of income resulting from the economic interference, the defendants’ continued occupation will cause irreparable prejudice and unquantifiable loss to the customer relationships, which cannot be compensated in money form.” The AID pension fund trustees added that Mr Miller was unlikely to be able to compensate them for this loss.

However, Mr Miller and his business argued that “the nature of his illness made it difficult for him to focus on the payments of overdue taxes. The second defendant [Mr Miller] never denied that he owed taxes.

“He disputed the amount that the Department of Inland Revenue stated that he owed and asked to meet with the acting chief valuation officer on several occasions to query the amount owed. The acting chief valuation officer never arranged a meeting, neither did the second defendant receive the quantification of the taxes from the department.”

Mr Miller alleged that the sale to the AID pension staff pension fund did not comply with the procedures set out in the Real Property Tax Act, thus rendering it flawed and invalid in law. He added that he lived on the property, which also contains numerous businesses and utility connections since 1986, and asserted that he was before the Court of Appeal challenging its sale and seizure via a separate case.

“I made every effort with the intention to settle the full payments of the real property taxes due and owing to the departments. At all times, I begged to know the true quantum that was indeed due and owing but, unfortunately, the acting chief valuation officer never responded positively to my request,” Mr Miller alleged.

“That shortly after being diagnosed with cancer in January 2022, I received a letter from the Department of Inland Revenue informing me of outstanding property taxes which they claimed to be due and owing.... That the amount quoted appeared to be erroneous and not a true and correct statement of what ought to have been owed to the Department of Inland Revenue....

“Due to my illness and treatments I was unable to divert the needed financial attention with respect to settling the full payment of the debt before the deadline, but strongly expressed a willingness to work out a payment plan. That in good faith, I further demonstrated my willingness to make payments toward settling the outstanding balance by offering a personal cheque in the amount of $200,000,” he added.

“I was told that the Department would only accept a managers cheque. That a manager’s cheque in the amount $200,000 was withdrawn from my Scotiabank account, Carmichael Road Branch, which was delivered to the Department of Inland Revenue on January 13, 2025.”

That payment was returned three weeks’ later, and the auction proceeded, but Mr Miller added that AID was the “only bidder, one of my competitors, my former tenant who had been evicted from my property in 2022”. Mr Miller also alleged that the locks to his property were changed during the site visit referred to Mr Watson, and said he encountered a “hostile attitude”.

Justice Card-Stubbs found for the AID pension fund, agreeing that “the ongoing loss” it claimed to be facing could be “substantial” if unable to possess the property and that Mr Miller would likely be unable to cover it.

“In considering the state of the evidence before me at this time, it is my assessment that the grant of an injunction will serve to enforce the current legal position. In the absence of a voided sale, the extant legal position is the demonstrated lawful ownership of the property and the entitlement of the lawful owner to possession of the property,” she concluded.

“It is my determination that, given the relative strength of the parties’ cases on the filed documents before me at this interlocutory stage, it will likely be determined by the outcome of a trial that the injunction is rightly granted.

“It seems to me that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the claimants, and that the course of action that will cause the least prejudice would be to grant an injunction and stem the continued loss said to be suffered by the claimants. My assessment is that there is a greater risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted than if it is,” Justice Card-Stubbs continued.

“I bear in mind the personal hardship that the second defendant will undergo in the necessary displacement that the injunction will cause. While a court may be mindful of such circumstances, this court is constrained to act in a way to ensure that its orders will serve to uphold and protect lawfully-demonstrated rights.

“The circumstances of the defendants will be taken into account by giving the second defendant a definite time period within which to vacate the property in order to accommodate a relocation exercise.”