Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Hears Jurisdiction Case Involving Alki David

Thu Jan 22 2026 01:37:09 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a significant hearing at the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Justice Rene Williams evaluated jurisdictional issues related to a case involving Alki David against multiple foreign defendants. The court's upcoming ruling could set a precedent for future legal proceedings in similar scenarios.

On January 16, 2026, Justice Rene Williams of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court presided over a key jurisdictional hearing in the case of Alki David against foreign defendants. The Attorney General's office argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the foreign residency of most defendants and insufficient connection to local law. David countered these points, asserting the relevancy of the case to Antigua’s interests. Court proceedings took a turn when a UK law firm rejected the court's jurisdiction. A ruling on jurisdiction is expected next month, with implications for international legal practices.

Attorney General’s Office Plus – Key Exchange Summary

January 16, 2026 | Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court 9.00 AM AGT
Justice Rene Williams presiding

Judge Williams seized the case by valid issuance, acceptance of jurisdiction, and active case management under ECSC CPR. She retained jurisdiction by declining to stay or dismiss the proceedings despite parallel foreign actions.

During the hearing, the Court sought clarification regarding recent written submissions from all parties, including the Attorney General’s Office – Antigua & Barbuda.

Justice Williams noted that she had only recently received Mr. David’s submissions. Counsel for the Attorney General’s Chambers confirmed awareness of filings by Mr. David but stated they had not yet reviewed the specific submissions in detail.

Mr. David explained that his recent filing did not introduce new evidence, but consisted of:

Service receipts demonstrating service on defendants

A note to the Court addressing comity between parallel proceedings in California and London

Re-filed documents submitted at the clerk’s suggestion, after earlier filings had not been properly received

The Court then turned to the Attorney General’s position. Counsel confirmed their provisional view that the Court lacked jurisdiction, citing principles from Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd. Key points included:

Most defendants reside outside Antigua & Barbuda

Claims are not clearly governed by Antiguan law

Insufficient factual connection between alleged conduct and jurisdiction

Practical difficulties and costs given overseas defendants and witnesses

Unclear pleading of causes of action under CPR

Justice Williams observed that physical presence in Antigua appeared limited, aside from possible property ownership by a few individuals.

Mr. David’s Response

Mr. David countered that physical presence was not determinative of jurisdiction and argued:

Conduct and harm occurred within Antigua & Barbuda, including reputational and economic damage

The Alpha Nero yacht, previously adjudicated by this Court, was present in Antigua for over a year and linked to the alleged conspiracy

Additional arguments included:

Foreign corporations broadcast into Antigua and the Caribbean, causing local harm

Sovereign programs and investments connected to Antigua were deliberately targeted

Parallel proceedings abroad demonstrated coordinated misconduct, not a lack of jurisdiction

Justice Williams clarified that, for jurisdiction analysis, she would assume Mr. David’s pleaded facts were true, but raised concerns about the alleged harm being primarily felt where Mr. David resides, not necessarily in Antigua.

The Court noted the risk of inconsistent rulings between jurisdictions including Antigua, California, and the UK. Mr. David asserted that Antigua remained the anchor jurisdiction.

Howard Kennedy Letter Raised by the Court

Justice Williams disclosed receiving a letter from Howard Kennedy LLP, a UK law firm, dated January 7, 2026. The letter asserted:

Howard Kennedy and its partners deny the jurisdiction of the Antiguan court

They would not participate in the January 16 hearing

Their involvement limited to UK enforcement proceedings

The Judge stated she would formally circulate the letter to both parties for the record.

Mr. David argued that Howard Kennedy had been served twice, and their non-participation amounted to contempt.

Justice Williams indicated that the letter would be filed and considered as part of the record.

Conclusion

Justice Williams thanked both parties for their submissions, stating she would consider all materials carefully. A written ruling on jurisdiction is expected early next month, determining the way forward.

The Court then rose.