Some of My Reported Cases
Below is a representative sample of some of Norman MacDonald’s reported cases.
Akeroyd v. The Bermuda Tax Commissioner [2020] SC (Bda) 22 Civ ( 6 April 2020)
This was an important constitutional and human rights case where they plaintiff was seeking to have certain provisions of the Land Tax Act and the Stamp Duties Act declared unconstitutional because they discriminated against non-Bermudians. The court ruled in favour of the Government.
Sannapareddy v. The Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General [2017] SC (Bda) 54 Civ (5 July 2017)
This was another important constitutional case. The plaintiff brought an application following his arrest without a warrant to have the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) that permit arrest without warrant declared unconstitutional. I represented the Attorney-General. The plaintiff was represented by Lord Peter Goldsmith, Q.C. He’s the same guy who was criticized in the Chilcot Report, for giving Prime Minister Tony Blair the legal opinion that Blair needed to justify military action against Iraq without UN approval, when he was the UK Attorney-General.Click here for more on that The plaintiff abandoned the prayer for constitutional relief at the end of trial and that claim was dismissed
Clemens v. The Minister of Education [2016] SC (Bda) 92 Civ (14 Nov 2016)
This was the first case of its kind in Bermuda. A teacher sued the Government claiming she suffered from PTSD caused by bullying in the workplace while she was a teacher at Cedarbridge Academy. The statement of claim alone was approximately 200 pages which the trial judge described as placing “ an excessive responsive burden on the Defendant.” Norman successfully represented the Government as trial counsel during a lengthy trial and the PTSD claim was dismissed.
And also for the Court of Appeal judgement where the Court of Appeal agrees with me that
” …the email inviting further submissions made it pretty clear that the Chief Justice (who was the trial judge) had already decided that the Respondent had proved the relevant injury.”
The Court of Appeal ruled that “…the death knell to the Respondent’s claim is that there was simply no evidence of the cause…”
(That’s a polite way of saying the trial judge just made it up).
Attorney-General v Da Silva et al [2018] SC (Bda) 41 Civ (15 May 2018)
This was a multi-million dollar case against a number of defendants, one of whom was a sitting Government Minister, for breach of trust and fiduciary duty, in awarding contracts to their own companies or companies they had an interest in. I successfully defended a summary judgment motion to have the case dismissed. The defendants were represented by Saul Froomkin Q.C. and James Jerome Q.C.
Collector of Customs v Rayclan[2016] SC (Bda)13 Civ (4 February 2016)
This was a landmark case involving the powers of Customs officials in assessing taxpayers and principles of natural justice of the Tax Appeal Tribunal. I had been trial counsel on an appeal by the taxpayer of the Collector’s assessment of import duties. At trial, the Tribunal Chair (Peter Pearman of Conyers Dill Pearman) told both counsel that the taxpayer had to prove that the Collector’s decision was unreasonable. After I successfully defended the Collector on the “reasonableness” argument, the Tribunal changed the rules after the trial had concluded to one of a standard of “correctness” , without inviting the Collector to make submissions on this change of direction. Applying this new standard, the Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal. I successfully represented the Collector of Customs on the appeal of the Tribunal’s ruling. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal below had breached the rules of natural justice and that the correct standard was one of “reasonableness” and set side the Tribunal’s decision.
Bermuda Gas v The Tax Commissioner [2015] SC (Bda) 30 App (5 May 2015)
I saved the Government over $3 million by successfully defending the Tax Commissioner in the Supreme Court on a major tax appeal case. The taxpayer was represented by Saul Froomkin Q.C.
Jack and Armstrong v The Minister of Public Works [2017]
Successfully defended the Government on a major environmental and nuisance case, in the Supreme Court. Following discovery and the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ summary judgement motion, the plaintiffs discontinued their action. The plaintiffs were represented by Alex Potts Q.C. At the start of the case, before hearing any evidence, I was accused by a biased trial judge (the same biased judge in the Clemons case above) of using “scorched earth tactics” in defending my client. If his intention was to intimidate me, then he failed miserably. Because not only did the plaintiffs discontinue the action, but I filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against him with the Governor of Bermuda. And as for “scorched earth tactics”, I will wear that distinction like a badge of honour, and I will continue to fearlessly raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, thatI think will help my client’s case, and will endeavour to obtain for my client the benefit of every remedy and defence authorized by law.