The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Thank you for permitting my family to air its response to the story carried under the headline “Judge Cuts $66,000 from Sir William’s outstanding loans”, which gave considerable coverage to one-sided comments by Anthony Myers, a litigant against my father’s estate (Business Section, Tuesday, January 18, 2022).

I would still like to point out, firstly, that the statement that Sir William Allen had “outstanding loans” to Mr Myers is a matter that is vigorously contested by my father’s estate and that has not yet been tried, much less established, by any court.

In fact, the only matters so far decided by the judge in the action as between Mr Myers and my father’s estate are that, firstly, Mr Myers’ action, as filed before the court, is “frivolous, vexatious” and in breach of the Rate of Interest Act and that his attorneys are now at liberty to bring forth an amended claim against the estate. When they do, be assured it will be vigorously defended.

No finding as to any sums being owed by any party has been made.

As for my own position in the litigation, please note that not only has Mr Myers’ claim against me been struck out in its entirety, but he is now obliged to pay my legal costs for having brought it in the first place.

Once again, I thank The Tribune for again justifying its hard earned reputation for fairness, balance and probity by reporting both sides of a contentious issue.

ANDREW ALLEN

Nassau,

January 19, 2022.