A Defence Force (ABDF) captain has been awarded EC$25,000 in damages by the High Court in his case against the ABDF’s Chief of Defence Staff.

The matter stemmed from allegations of misconduct by the ABDF who sought to have Javonson Willock resign from his post.

Willock’s case first started in 2021 when disciplinary proceedings were started against him for alleged misconduct. The Chief of Defence Staff wrote to the Prime Minister saying Willock’s alleged behaviour would adversely affect discipline if he continued as a member of the ABDF, concluding his position was therefore untenable.

Those allegations against Willock were deemed null and void by the High Court in 2023.

The amount awarded to Willock is substantially lower than the $380,000 that he had applied for. Willock was seeking $228,134 in general damages, $50,000 in exemplary damages, $42,000 in aggravated damages, and vindicatory damages of $60,000, for being denied due process, ridiculed and humiliated by his superiors, and for the breakdown of his marriage.

However, the award by Justice Jan Drysdale represented a larger figure than the $2,000 damages and $9,737 in costs recommended by the Chief of Defence Staff.

The court found insufficient evidence to award costs for several of Willock’s claims, including the impact on his marriage.

In making her decision, Justice Drysdale said that based on the detailed witness statement and cross examination at trial “Willock’s approach and the overall handling of the matter clearly indicate his [erroneous] belief… that he was entitled to damages for every imaginable grievance, not just the defective procedure”.

The High Court justice, in her judgement, went through each event that Willock sought to use in the case to argue for damages, highlighting how there was little evidence to prove that the disciplinary process and his divorce, loss of rental allowance and any loss of salary were linked.

However, she said that ridicule stemming from the flawed disciplinary procedure, which caused “others to treat them as guilty, even without proper opportunity for defence” should be considered.

The judge noted further that the Defence Force’s refusal to allow Willock to consult legal representation and access to the evidence was worth compensation.

Last December, Justice Drysdale issued an interim injunction preventing the ABDF from changing Willock’s employment status, amid claims the force was correcting an oversight that kept him in a permanent position for seven years.

Meanwhile, two other ABDF officers have also taken the organisation to court for similar reasons.

Austin Buntin and Marlan Mathurin want the court to stop the ABDF from changing their ranks which could force them to lose their wages and pensions.