Feinstein suffers setback at Court of Appeal
BELIZE CITY, Thurs. Nov. 20, 2025
After a three-hour hearing, the President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Madame Justice Minnet Hafiz-Bertram, today denied an application for leave to appeal filed by businessman Michael Feinstein, former principal of Stake Bank Enterprises Limited (SBEL), now in receivership. Feinstein had sought to overturn an October 24, 2025 ruling of High Court Justice Rajiv Goonetilleke. The lower court judge refused Feinstein’s application to amend his defense in the fraud case that Atlantic Bank had instituted against him. The dispute surrounds title for the 23.4-acre extension of Stake Bank Island, which was registered in Feinstein’s personal name rather than in the name of SBEL, as Atlantic Bank had presumed. The Court of Appeal’s refusal represents another setback for Feinstein, who also sought to introduce further evidence in his defense in the fraud case.
Feinstein’s lead attorney, King’s Counsel Richard Salter rejected suggestions that the defense team is attempting to delay proceedings in the lower court. He maintained that the proposed amendments “are clear and material, and that what we are seeking is the fair and just determination of the real matter …” Salter explained that the amendments include substantive defenses grounded in points of law that would defeat Atlantic Bank’s claim. He argued that to prevent Feinstein from raising these defenses would cause extreme prejudice, as Feinstein would be unable to make strong arguments central to his case.
Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, representing Atlantic Bank, explained that Feinstein only applied to amend his defense and introduce a further witness statement from himself and another from his wife just eight days before the start of trial set for October 29, 2025. He highlighted that Feinstein retained Salter and his team as additional counsel to his local attorneys in July 2025, but the application to amend pleadings was not submitted until October.
Atlantic Bank opposed the application, and Justice Goonetilleke ruled that it was an abuse of process, citing delays and lateness. At the time, the matter had already been adjourned three times. Courtenay emphasized that the judge was correct to deny the application on those grounds. However, Salter countered in the Court of Appeal that the judge had arrived at an unreasonable inference unsupported by evidence. He insisted that Feinstein’s intention is to put forward proper defenses, not to cause delay, and that the most important consideration in allowing amendments is whether they have a real prospect of success. Lateness, he said, is only one factor when deciding on amendments, and it is not determinative.
In his oral submissions to the Court of Appeal, Courtenay argued that “it’s all a matter of delay – it’s playing tactics.” He referenced civil procedure rules which require judges to consider how promptly an applicant acts after becoming aware of the need for amendments. Courtenay argued that the delay was unjustifiable, and that any prejudice is self-inflicted. He said that the fact that new counsel had re-evaluated the case is not a valid reason for late amendments under established case law.
At the conclusion of today’s hearing, Salter notified that they will seek to have the application heard by a full panel of judges of the Court of Appeal. The parties had agreed for a single judge to rule on the matter to expedite proceedings. The trial has been put on hold due to the application for leave to appeal. In the meantime, Courtenay says that while the matter languishes in court, the asset is wasting away. “I believe it is regrettable that the legal fight is continuing whilst the asset is wasting, whilst the opportunity to develop that island and to have it act as some sort of cruise facility is being delayed – something which everyone recognizes is vital for the development of the tourism sector,” he commented.
