Guana Cay Victory

The Association has been trying to get a court order to stop the multimillion-dollar development, which has been at the centre of controversy for more than a year now.

Last November, Discovery Land Company agreed to stop work on the project until the Supreme Court rules on the substantive case.

But the Court of Appeal said in a ruling last month that as of May 31, the developers were cleared of that undertaking and could get back to work, which they did.

It was that ruling that the Association wanted to appeal to the high court in London.

"We feel satisfied that justice has been served and will be served in the future," Steve Adelson, an executive at Baker’s Bay, said on Wednesday. "Baker’s Bay will be a model development for The Bahamas from an economical and environmental perspective."

He added, "Since our voluntary undertaking has been lifted the spirit of our staff has been inspiring to everyone. We are excited about what the future will hold. The 120 Bahamians we employ are back to work with a renewed and restored confidence."

After filing the application several weeks ago seeking leave to appeal to the Privy Council, Association attorney Fred Smith told the Bahama Journal, "The Save Guana Cay Association is afraid that if the development proceeds, particularly [clearing of] the crown and treasury land which the developers don’t even have a lease of, the damage to the environment is going to be irreparable.

"You can’t put back virgin forests once you cut them down. You can’t put back the mangrove and wetlands once they’ve been dredged out."

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal also refused an application by the Association for an injunction against the government and the developers. The Court of Appeal determined that the application was without merit and ordered the Association to pay costs totaling $18,000.

Michael Barnett, attorney for Discovery Land Company, said after the determination from the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that, "There is no legal impediment to the developers continuing with their development, which is based upon the principle of utmost respect to the environment."

The substantive case in the Supreme Court wrapped up on February 23, but Acting Justice Norris Carrol has yet to deliver a judgment.

The Save Guana Cay Reef Association wants the judge to rule that the government had no legal authority to approve such a project, which Association members insist is already damaging the environment.

Weeks ago, Mr. Smith had asked the Court of Appeal for an order saying that until the judgment is delivered by Acting Justice Carrol in the Supreme Court the developers be prohibited from continuing their project, which would have included the blocking of any further clearing of land, or extension of roads.

But the high court dismissed that request in May, saying it was "misconceived".

The court noted at the time that it had heard extensive arguments from Mr. Smith as to why it should not relieve the developers from their undertaking given last year.

The Association had claimed that the developers had caused damage to the environment since the undertaking was given, and that this damage could be irreparable, but the Court of Appeal said there was no evidence to support this.

The Association had also said that an Environmental Impact Assessment study needed to be done, but the Court of Appeal also said in the May ruling that it was not dealing with the material facts of the case before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Smith could not be reached on Wednesday to comment on the latest development in the Guana Cay matter, although he and the Association have vowed to pursue every conceivable legal avenue in their attempt to stop the project.