The court has issued a procedural order in the legal dispute between Mesop Area Rep. Moses Shyne Barrow and Albert Area Rep. Trracy Panton over the leadership of the United Democratic Party (UDP) and has prioritised key issues and established deadlines to streamline the resolution process.
The claimants must file a reply to the defendants’ answer and a defence to their counterclaim by 6 January 2025, with the defendants required to respond by 15 January 2025. Specific disclosure requests are to be submitted by 17 January 2025, with the attorneys expected to complete the disclosure process by 31 January 2025. A joint pre-trial memorandum is due by 14 February 2025, while written submissions addressing priority issues must be exchanged by 28 February 2025. These submissions are limited to 25 pages, formatted in Times New Roman font with one-and-a-half line spacing.
The two priority issues identified by the court include whether the meeting held on 20 October 2024 was a constitutionally valid national convention and whether Panton remains a member of the UDP. The court stressed that resolving these questions will either settle the substantive disputes or significantly narrow the matters in contention. The second question has been reframed to focus exclusively on Panton, as its resolution will address allegations of her constructive resignation or expulsion from the UDP and related claims involving Patrick Faber, Beverly Williams, and John Saldivar. The court reasoned that involving these individuals at this stage would add unnecessary complexity and cost. Their participation will be considered only if Panton’s membership in the UDP is confirmed and the October meeting is deemed lawful.
The claimants’ attorney must prepare a trial bundle, including pleadings, relevant documents, and submissions, by 14 March 2025. Oral submissions are scheduled for 31 March 2025, with each attorney limited to two hours. The court noted that this date accommodates the availability of the parties’ attorneys, whose schedules delayed a swifter resolution. However, this extended timeframe provides an opportunity for mediation, which the court strongly encourages, given the unique nature of the dispute.
To ensure clarity and efficiency, the claimants and defendants are required to appoint a local firm of attorneys in Belize. The court highlighted the confusion caused by the unclear roles of Messrs. Arnold & Company and Pitts Law Firm and noted that it is uncertain whether the claimants are represented by a local firm with counsel acting as an advocate. Both parties’ attorneys must confirm their authority and identify lead counsel by 6 January 2025.
The court reiterated that adherence to the established timelines is mandatory, with changes allowed only under exceptional circumstances and through formal application. This procedural order reflects the court’s aim to resolve the dispute efficiently and fairly, underscoring the importance of cooperation and good faith by all parties involved.
Earlier this year, senior UDP members Moses Barrow, Michael Peyrefitte, Shary Medina, Alberto August, and Hugo Patt filed an urgent court action against Tracy Taegar Panton and Phillipa Griffith Bailey, alleging unlawful seizure of the UDP Headquarters on October 28, 2024. They seek an injunction to reclaim the property, restore party assets, and prevent further unauthorised actions.
The claimants argue that Panton’s actions disrupt UDP operations, harm its reputation ahead of elections, and undermine Barrow’s role as Leader of the Opposition. They seek a court declaration affirming their rights to the headquarters, an order for Panton to vacate, and damages for unlawful possession.
Barrow then filed for contempt orders against Panton, alleging noncompliance with a November 8, 2024, judgement by Justice Hondora. They sought a three-month prison sentence or a $500 fine, payable within seven days, failing which the prison term would apply. The claimants also request costs and any additional relief deemed appropriate.
