FULL JUDGEMENT: Judge Rules Attorney Andrew O. Kola Not Immune from Negligence Suit

In a landmark decision on October 27, 2025, High Court Judge Jan Drysdale ruled that attorney Andrew O. Kola cannot invoke legal immunity in a professional negligence lawsuit filed by businessman Patrick “Paddy” Prendergast. The case arose from Kola’s alleged failure to file a defense in a 2022 civil lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment of $513,740 against Prendergast, who is now seeking $516,700 in damages for negligence and breach of contract. Prendergast, owner of a storage facility in Midway, St. John, had hired Kola to defend him against claims by former business associate Ronald Mind, who accused him of improperly storing items. Despite being retained promptly, Kola reportedly missed the deadline to file a defense and mishandled an application to set aside the judgment, which was dismissed due to non-compliance with court orders. Kola admitted to failing in his duties but argued that his actions were protected by barrister’s immunity under Antigua and Barbuda’s Legal Profession Act and common law principles established in cases like Rondel v. Worsley and Saif Ali v. Mitchell. He claimed that since he had entered an appearance on behalf of Prendergast, he was shielded from liability as an advocate in court. However, Prendergast’s legal team, led by King’s Counsel E. Ann Henry, countered that immunity applies only to in-court advocacy, not preparatory or administrative work. Justice Drysdale sided with the claimant, ruling that Kola’s negligence occurred during pre-trial preparation and procedural compliance, which does not qualify for immunity. She emphasized that the Legal Profession Act distinguishes between advocacy and preparatory work, and extending immunity to pre-trial negligence would be inconsistent with statute and precedent. The case, Patrick Prendergast v. Andrew O. Kola (ANUHCV2024/0018), highlights the limits of professional immunity in Antigua and Barbuda’s legal system, establishing that attorneys can be held liable for pre-trial negligence. The matter was adjourned to November 13, 2025, for further hearings on costs.