Legal Costs to be decided in September! The Children lost again!
Church wins and the Children cannot get justice! Here we go again! Who stole the cookie out the cookie jar at St. Johns?
Nassau, Bahamas — Another landmark case has been decided in the Supreme Court in the matter between the parents of St. Johns College students and the Anglican Central Education Authority.
This morning Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett ruled that while contracts did exist between students of the 2013 graduating class of St Johns College and the Anglican Central Education Authority[ACEA], the school did have the discretion to cancel the graduation ceremony and prom.
The ruling has shocked parents who wanted a reimbursement of their children funds which some believe may have been squandered!
Sir Michael added that the situation between the parties was unfortunate but added that, in the circumstances; the ACEA was not in a contractual breach even though it cancelled graduation four days prior to the ceremony. UNBELIEVABLE!
The Chief Justice in his opinion stated that no amount of money could compensate the students for losing out on that special day that rewarded them for years of hard work, and that all students as a group would not have participated in the incidents [Ditch Day], which led to the canceling of the events.
He expressed his hoped that the ACEA would consider reimburse to those students in the end.
Christina Galanos, who represented the parents of the students, and brought legal action against the school made no comment on the decision as she left the court.
Diane Stuart, Vice Chancellor for the ACEA, said it really was an unfortunate situation for both sides but believes that the right choice was made.
The Chief Justice in September will hear arguments on legal costs associated with the case.
What a time – This means I could pay someone to build my home and when they hear me cussin outside they could telephone me and tell me the house ain’t ga build no more because of my attitude and that contractor could then decide to not reimburse me my fund?
This ruling should be appealed!
