Meeting is “without prejudice” - Knox’s Intent to Purchase Shares is Stated

(Recap: Sir Henry Forde and Clyde Turney set up a “without prejudice” meeting between Turney’s client and two of Marjorie Knox’s children to discuss Kingsland’s shares.)

The Bannatyne meeting starts with the statement that it is “without prejudice”. Cox agrees.

Knox’s daughter, Jane, states that Mrs. Knox wishes to buy all of the shares, and that she has the finance in place. Cox replies that that is her option, but adds that BACT (Barbados Agricultural Credit Trust) has initiated action. (This refers to an impending foreclosure by BACT, a government agency.)

Shareholders will be asked to put up $2M

Cox states that if Knox does not sell her shares, that a call will be made on her shares, and that she will have to come up with first $1,428,500, and then $571,400. Cox discusses raising money and mentions that he has a joint venture with LOB (Life of Barbados). Cox makes the point that to make money you have to invest money. He emphasizes the point by saying “you have to have staying power”.

I was stunned at what Cox said about Iain Deane. I wonder if he knows? “As far as I am concerned, I have sufficient reserves built into my agreement to take care of anything that Iain can bring against Kingsland or the Deanes. It won’t be at me, it will be at them. OK.” (My emphasis.) I interpret this to mean that the shareholders who agreed to sell will be held liable for any lawsuits. The implication is that those who have already sold have not received all of their money. This could explain why some family members who claim to have sold are still so interested in the case.

Cox signs affidavit misrepresenting the meeting

After the meeting, Turney prepares with Cox an affidavit that not only violates the “without prejudice” agreement, it totally misrepresents the meeting. (These misrepresentations were favourable to the agenda of the authors.) This affidavit from Classic is presented to the court “at the eleventh hour”.

Misrepresentation brought to judge’s attention - no disciplinary action taken

The Knox family is outraged. Their lawyer, Alair Shepherd, strides into court waving an affidavit clearly showing that the affidavit is misleading. He is carrying the tape recording.
Judge Greenidge is presiding. He does not stop the proceedings. He does not lay charges against Turney and Cox. He merely strikes out some of the sections of the affidavit and continues on as if nothing had happened.

Read the definition of perjury below. I am not a lawyer, but I hold the opinion that Cox’s sworn affidavit, which was prepared by Clyde Turney, fits the description in this definition.

You are also encouraged to read the following before forming an opinion:

  1. Transcript of the tape recording of the meeting between the Knoxes and Cox
  2. the Cox Affidavit prepared by Clyde Turney
  3. the Knox affidavit repling to the Cox Affidavit
  4. Justice Greenidge’s notes

Unexpected Turn

Later, in an unexpected turn of events, the Court ruled in favour of Classic.


Additional reading - Wikipedia definition of perjury:

Perjury (also called forswearing) is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

I invite Judge Greenidge, Clyde Turney and Richard Cox to comment on this topic. Is the above definition of perjury applicable in Barbados? In particular, I would be grateful for their views on the subject of this affidavit.



Disclaimer: We wish to remind our readers that while we quote public court documents, the contents of these documents should be taken as unproven allegations. What we state here is our opinion. On the other hand, we welcome and value comments. Under the circumstances, anonymous comments are most welcome.