BVI News

Speaker ‘not interested’ in appealing High Court judgement

Speaker Julian Willock

Speaker of the House of Assembly, Julian Willock has indicated he does not intend to appeal a High Court judgement against him in the aborted injunction he filed against three Commission of Inquiry (COI) lawyers.

Willock was deemed personally liable for legal fees after withdrawing his case upon failing to get the blessing of Attorney General (AG), Dawn Smith.

Willock initially filed a motion of objection along with the Deputy Speaker, Neville ‘Sheep’ Smith, to prevent the attorneys from being called to the bar. He admitted in an appearance on the Umoja radio show recently, that he filed the injunction on his own “because everything was moving so fast” at the time.

He denied ever trying to stop the COI’s work at any time. 

Willock expressed to radio host, Edju En Ka, that he felt the injunction was simply an extension of his earlier objection motion before the court, which had been heard by a different judge at the time.

Justice Adrian Jack ultimately determined that the action was filed in Willock’s private capacity and not in his capacity as Speaker of the House and on behalf of the public’s interest as he continues to claim. 

When told that he may actually have grounds for an appeal if the judge had made this ruling in error, Willock told the host, “I am not necessarily interested in any appeal.”

They are right, I never got permission

Speaking on the issue of whether he had received permission from HOA members to file the injunction, Willock said: “There have been members of the House of Assembly who have gotten up and said that they weren’t aware of the injunction, and most of them are right. I discussed the injunction with about three members on the government side and two on the opposition. So, everybody at the same time was not aware of the injunction, so they are right.”

 According to Willock, the issue of permission being required from House members or by the Attorney General, “was never a factor” until it was raised by the judge and was never a consideration that was given to him by his attorneys at Silk Legal. 

Willock said after the injunction was filed, he later circulated an email informing the HOA members about the action. 

The HOA has since established a select committee to determine whether Willock should pay the legal fees as ordered by the court, or whether the burden should be passed on to taxpayers instead.

Copyright 2021 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.


Disclaimer: BVI News and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the comments below or other interaction among the users.

  1. heckler says:

    Apparently Wiglock knows that Fahie got his back so he doesn’t see no need to appeal

    Like 26
    Dislike 2
    • @ heckler says:

      I watched Mr. Willock interview on the big story. Julian you did your self good, very professional and now I understand. WE WITH WILLOCK YALL

      Like 3
      Dislike 28
    • Buf**on says:

      The Blonde Baf**on knows he will lose upon appeal and rack up more attorneys fees. He knows F** Albert and the rest of the cr**ks will make the people pay his debt. How about he just get tarred and feathered and set adrift with his wig so his bald head don’t burn.

      Like 5
      Dislike 1
  2. Resident says:

    wig boy needs to stop wasting the people’s money on b.s

    Like 25
    Dislike 1
  3. Court of Appeal says:

    If not pursuing an appeal to this higher court than its either personally pay the ordered costs or committal NOW.

    Like 17
    Dislike 2
  4. they are right says:

    Say it again. Repeat it as much as needed to understand that you were wrong….wrong headed.

    A little light of humility. He should do that more often. He would be a better person for it. Again, he needs to pay his court ordered legal fees. Not taxpayers.

    Like 21
    Dislike 1
  5. Rattie says:

    Willock is the man

    Like 3
    Dislike 23
  6. Lodger says:

    I thought he was trying to prevent them working because they had not been admitted to the bar. Now it seems they had applied to be admitted and his injunction was to prevent them being admitted. That is a different thing.

  7. rolling eyes says:

    I am tired of piggly wiggly.

    Like 13
    Dislike 2
    • @ ROLLING EYES says:

      love him or hate him the esteemed has been a very great speaker. Very competent and knows his stuff in the House.

      Hope the VIP do not throw him under the bus

      Like 4
      Dislike 21
  8. No Trust says:

    If there was no benefit to the tax paying public, the case should not have been taken to court. It should have been drawn to the attention of the AG. As it stands, taxpayers do not support Willock’s action and we should not be forced to pay the bill. Mr. Premier, we know that the committee that you set up is a clown show. Be a man and tell the people your true intention. VIP must go!!!

    Like 13
    Dislike 1
  9. L Ipton says:

    The most logical thing to do is appeal the judgement if he believes the judge erred or the government should pay the fees…unfortunately he knows that the judge’s ruling was correct.

    Like 14
    Dislike 1
  10. Facts says:

    Say what you want mr Willock is fighting for us, he should be given a knighthood to be honest

    Like 2
    Dislike 24
  11. Okay says:

    Well you and those who agreed with you should pay the bill and not the rest of us

    Like 15
    Dislike 1
  12. reply says:

    willock is a sharp boy mehson

    Like 2
    Dislike 8
  13. @ REPLY says:


  14. HELLO says:

    do you know who I am ? ,let me enlighten that down island judge , I am the ESTEEMED ONE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE (HOA ), so am a king🤴 and I have absolutely no INTREST in anything he says ( HE Heeeee where is my glove

  15. Want 2 Know says:

    The HOA has since established a select committee to determine whether Willock should pay the legal fees as ordered by the court, or whether the burden should be passed on to taxpayers instead.

    Isn’t this bordering on contempt of court?

Leave a Comment