11-Apr-16
START DATE
END DATE
15-Apr-16
HIRAM EDWARDS v. THE MINISTER OF FINANCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Hon. Justice Stephen Hellman
Mr. Kenrick L. James (James & Associates)
Ms. Shakira J. Dill (Attorney General?s Chambers)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Hiram Edwards sought enforcement of a 2014 Court of Appeal ruling declaring that the Minister of Finance had unlawfully withheld pension payments. The Accountant General later reassessed the case and withheld $154,525.37, arguing it was lawfully deducted under the Public Treasury (Administration and Payments) Act 1969. Edwards challenged this as res judicata and an abuse of process, claiming the government could not legally recover the funds. The Supreme Court ruled that the Accountant General had the legal right to reconsider and withhold the pension overpayments, dismissing the claim.
SUMMARY:
Issues
OUTCOMES:
Claim Dismissed
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Minister of Finance
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
HIRAM EDWARDS v. THE MINISTER OF FINANCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Hiram Edwards sought enforcement of a 2014 Court of Appeal ruling declaring that the Minister of Finance had unlawfully withheld pension payments. The Accountant General later reassessed the case and withheld $154,525.37, arguing it was lawfully deducted under the Public Treasury (Administration and Payments) Act 1969. Edwards challenged this as res judicata and an abuse of process, claiming the government could not legally recover the funds. The Supreme Court ruled that the Accountant General had the legal right to reconsider and withhold the pension overpayments, dismissing the claim.