The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE SUPREME Court has found a major global bank breached Bahamian law by failing to remedy a “known workplace hazard” as it awarded two ex-employees a combined $109,000 in damages for “pain, suffering and loss of amenity” due to resulting health woes.

Justice Darron Ellis, in a September 30, 2026, verdict found that Lombard Odier & Cie (Bahamas) had violated the Health and Safety at Work Act by failing to address mould and fungal-related contamination at its Goodman’s Bay Corporate Centre offices in the years leading up to 2012, which caused Dorothea Collie and Helen Saunders to suffer from multiple illnesses and ailments.

Finding that the Swiss-headquartered financial institution had contravened the Act’s section 4 (1), which required Lombard Odier to “provide a reasonably safe place and system of work”, the judge awarded Ms Collie a total of $55,140 in general and special damages over events that date back 12-13 years, while Ms Saunders received $53,550 to take the total payout to $108,690.

However, the latter sum is just a fraction - less than 5 percent - of the combined $2.203m damages that the two former Lombard Odier employees had sought against the bank. Ms Collie had argued she should receive $1.419m, while Ms Saunders had sought an award of $783,527, but Justice Ellis ruled that not every illness, ailment and health condition cited could be directly blamed on conditions at the Goodman’s Bay Corporate Centre offices.

Evidence cited at the trial also suggested health and environmental challenges at the well-known office complex, located just past ‘Go Slow’ bend on West Bay Street heading towards Cable Beach, were not confined to Lombard Odier staff and also persisted in the years after Ms Collie and Ms Saunders had left the bank in 2012-2013.

Patricia Gooding, who was based at the Goodman’s Bay Corporate Centre when she joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as head of human resources on July 24, 2017, testified on the former bank employees’ behalf “that her own health was severely affected by poor air quality and mouldy conditions in which the building was maintained”. She alleged that, within a month of starting, she suffered “extreme flu-like symptoms and abdominal discomfort”.

The office complex is owned by Goodman’s Bay Development Company, a subsidiary of BISX-listed Colina Holdings (Bahamas), which owns a majority 86 percent interest according to its 2025 financial statements. However, it appears that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was still experiencing issues with its offices in the complex as recently as last year given the political controversy that erupted around the award of a $1.7m contract to repair the air conditioning.

Justice Ellis, in his verdict, noted that Ms Collie was a more than 33-year employee with Lombard Odier, having joined in December 1979, only to cease working for it on March 31, 2013. Ms Saunders was a 13-year veteran who joined on September 2, 1998, just prior to the bank’s move into Goodman’s Bay Corporate Centre in April 2000. She left on March 30, 2012, almost a year before Ms Collie.

“The claimants’ pleaded case is that the workplace was affected by longstanding air quality and environmental problems; that the defendant knew or ought to have known of those problems; that it failed to warn, protect or relocate its employees; and that it failed to maintain the workplace in a condition that was sate and without risk to health,” Justice Ellis wrote.

“The injuries alleged by the claimants are extensive and include chronic fatigue, cognitive and memory problems, respiratory and systemic complaints, toxic mould exposure, and chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS), together with a number of more specific diagnoses pleaded in each action….

“The central factual allegation in both claims is that the defendant knew the workplace had an air quality problem and was unsafe for the claimants and their co-workers,” the judge continued.

“The claimants plead that, in 2005, an employee in the same building, Genoveve Caso, who was said to have been getting sick continuously because of poor air quality, called the Ministry of Health to determine whether the workplace was safe or posed a threat to employees' health.

“They plead that, to their knowledge, the defendant did not allow the Ministry of Health to conduct tests, while the health of the claimants and their colleagues continued to deteriorate as a result of exposure to poor air quality.” Both women alleged that this left them physically unable to work yet still incurring significant costs related to medical care and travel for treatment.

However, Lombard Odier vehemently rejected the claims and “denied negligence, denied breach of statutory duty, denied that it failed to provide a safe workplace, and denied that any condition in the workplace caused or materially contributed to the claimants' alleged injuries, loss or damage”.

“The Defendant maintained that reasonable steps were taken in response to any workplace concerns and that the claimants were not entitled to the damages or other relief claimed,” Justice Ellis wrote.

Turning to the evidence provided by the parties, he recorded: “Ms Collie described a number of water intrusion and ventilation issues while employed with the defendant. She stated that a few months after moving into the Goodman's Bay Corporate Centre, the workplace client bathroom flooded due to plumbing issues, and water seeped into a nearby storage facility and kitchen.

“She also stated that in or about June or July 2005, the workplace was without air conditioning because the chiller system had malfunctioned. Fans were used because the windows could not open, and the air remained stuffy and stale for approximately two months while the situation was being addressed.”

Ms Collie also complained about water intrusion into Lombard Odier’s Goodman’s Bay Corporate Centre offices that occurred following Hurricane Wilma in 2005 and Hurricane Irene in 2011. She alleged that, in 2007, “she began to notice that she was winded when climbing stairs and fatigued due to upper respiratory problems.

“She said she felt as though she was not obtaining sufficient oxygen and, as a result, she stopped exercising after work. She also stated that Ms Saunders complained of headaches, ringing in her ears and dizziness, and told her that she felt her health was deteriorating due to the work environment,” Justice Ellis noted.

Ms Collie alleged that Air Care Bahamas, an outside firm called in to inspect and clean the bank’s office air filters and vents for mould and fungi, reported in 2007 that “more than 70 percent of the air in the office was contaminated”. And she added that Niekia Horton, Lombard Odier’s then-chief operating officer, brought a ventilator for her to use in 2011 when she experienced difficulties in breathing at her desk.

And, when she and Ms Saunders attended a US laboratory for medical testing of their respective conditions in May 2012, she said they recorded 4.2ppb and 6.2ppb for mould-related exposure - far in excess of 0.2ppb, which marked the safe limit. Ms Collie added that she only learned of her March 2013 termination from the bank when she was informed by a colleague.

“Ms Collie stated that at no time during her employment did the defendant warn staff of mould infestation or inform them that it was trying to remediate air quality, despite having reports indicating elevated airborne debris,” Justice Ellis recorded.

“She stated that her health deteriorated significantly as a result of exposure to the unsafe and hazardous workplace environment, and described memory problems, headaches, deteriorated eyesight, near accidents while driving, anxiety, depression, loss of independence and loss of her ability to sing as before.

“Additionally, Ms Collie gave evidence in chief about her salary and benefits. She said that her last monthly salary at the defendant was approximately $7,230. In cross-examination, Ms Collie gave evidence about her current work as an office clerk at the Church of God of Prophecy National Office, earning S1,700 per month, with duties involving greeting people, attending to requests and going to the post office.”

Ms Saunders, who was Lombard Odier’s operations and information technology (IT) manager and assistant vice-president, alleged that she started suffering from flu and colds in 2005 after the air conditioning chiller malfunctioned. “Ms Saunders added that, from 2009, she attempted to identify the cause of her consistent illnesses,” Justice Ellis recalled.

“Ms Saunders stated that she regularly complained to the defendant about air quality and her protracted illlnes. but that, to her knowledge at the time, the defendant failed or refused to take steps. She said that in September 2011, she began to be harassed, culminating in the defendant offering her a separation package….

“Ms Saunders described the impact on her quality and enjoyment of life. She stated that she became afraid to travel or go anywhere, was exhausted. suffered memory loss and was regularly disoriented. She gave an example from 2014 when she drove on the wrong side of the road until her nephew intervened. She also stated that she developed a stutter while at the workplace in 2012. which worsened but resolved after a year outside the workplace. She stated that she was physically unable to work between March 2012 and January 2016.”

However, Lombard Odier, in its defence, argued that its former employees failed to prove “it allowed the workplace to remain wet, damp, dangerous or otherwise unsafe”. And it asserted: “On liability, the defendant emphasises that it did not owe an absolute duty to ensure that no mould or airborne contaminant could ever exist in the workplace.

“Rather, its legal obligation was to exercise reasonable care and take reasonable steps to provide a safe system and place of work. It contends that the evidence showed that it did so by responding to complaints, engaging cleaning and air conditioning contractors, implementing Ministry of Health recommendations, commissioning testing and carrying out remediation when issues were identified,” Justice Ellis wrote.

“It notes that the claimants themselves acknowledged that, following incidents of water intrusion. the carpets were cleaned and dried and that contractors attended the premises. It argues that the claimants suggestion that damp or hazardous conditions persisted underneath furniture or in unseen areas was speculative and unsupported by reliable corroborating evidence.

“The defendant also argues that the claimants evidence concerning air quality, visible mould, musty odours and internal warnings was weak, inconsistent and in part hearsay. The defendant further relies on evidence of the wider conditions within the Goodman's Bay Corporate Centre to argue that, even if mould existed in the workplace, the claimants failed to prove it originated there or it was attributable to any fault of the defendant.”

Justice Ellis, though, found for Ms Collie and Ms Saunders, although not awarding the compensation they sought. “I am also satisfied that, during the material period, the workplace was affected by recurring environmental problems that required a reasonable employer to take effective protective action,” he said.

“I accept the claimants' evidence concerning recurring water intrusion, wet carpeting, sealed windows, periods of inadequate air conditioning or ventilation, stale air and airborne debris. That evidence is materially supported by the environmental history, and by the fact that investigation, cleaning and remediation became necessary…. In other words, it appears that the workplace was in a water-damaged building….

“The relevant question is whether, once the recurring environmental problems and employee concerns became known, the defendant responded as a reasonable and prudent employer would have. I find that it did not. Although contractors attended, and cleaning and other measures were undertaken from time to time, the response was not sufficiently timely, systematic or effective to address the recurring conditions,” Justice Ellis added.

“The defendant failed to disclose the environmental reports. Further, the defendant failed to communicate adequately material environmental findings to the claimants and warn them of the potential significance of those findings. Given repeated water intrusion, ventilation failures, employee complaints, airborne debris findings, and the need for investigation/remediation, a reasonable employer should have adopted a more systematic, prompt and precautionary response, and kept employees properly informed and safe.

“I therefore find that the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions in response to a known or reasonably foreseeable workplace hazard and was in breach of its common law duty and its statutory duty.”