Sandals Resorts International (SRI) Executive Chairman Adam Stewart and Jamaica’s Appliance Traders Limited (ATL) Group have secured a key legal victory against a fellow shareholder and member of the inner circle of the wider Stewart Family legally questioning his ability to run the Caribbean’s only Fortune 500 company – which won the prized regional and global accolade under his watch.
In the latest case by some of the Executors of the Will of the late SRI Founder, Gordon ‘Butch’ Stewart – including his US-based ex-wife, Cheryl Hamersmith — who filed a claim seeking the court’s authorization for an “urgent Red Flag audit” to be carried out on Gorstew Limited, ATL and their subsidiaries.
The majority shares of the two companies were held by the Sandals Founding Chairman at his death and formed a part of his large and multinational legal estate.
According to the claim, the necessity for such an audit allegedly arose from Adam Stewart’s management under the title of Executive Chairman of Gorstew Limited and allegations of financial malfeasance.
As a result, Stewart successfully applied to be joined in the Fixed Date Claim — and was thereafter granted permission to make an Ancillary Claim, in which he sought a declaration that a ‘No Contest Clause’ in his father’s will is not triggered by his participation in the claim brought by the Executors.
According to the “no contest clause”, a beneficiary filing a claim, as defined in the Will, could materially affect the interests of any other beneficiary, and thereby forfeits his bequests under the Will.
The Ancillary Claim sought an order that Stewart cannot properly and fairly engage in and respond to, the Claim, or progress the Application without having the assurance that doing so (including making applications and giving evidence) will not result in him forfeiting his very valuable interest, under the Will.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Jamaica upheld Adam’s request and agreed that his participation in the Fixed Date claim brought by the Executors does not engage the “No Contest Clause” and will therefore grant the declarations sought.
In the judgment handed down by Justice Cresencia Brown Beckford, it was noted that:
“Adam’s case is predicated on the concern that the Executors are acting or may be acting in bad faith, as was evidenced by the highly personal attacks which impugn his conduct, judgment and integrity contained in the affidavits in support of the claim, and which go well beyond mere factual background.”
The judgment continued: “These serious and far-reaching allegations, the Executors refusal to serve him with the proceedings and their objection to him being joined in the claim, even in light of the direct bearing that the Fixed Date Claim may have on him, support his concern.
“Further, he has been threatened through correspondence from two of the Executors, Mr. Patterson and Ms. Hamersmith-Stewart, with invoking the No Contest Clause in circumstances where it would not be applicable.
“These factual contentions are yet to be determined, but are the predicate on which he seeks to participate in the claim.”
Justice Brown Beckford concluded that, “in all the circumstances, the Ancillary Claimant succeeds in the application, and the Orders are granted as prayed.”
But this is not the first case Stewart has won against his ex-Mother-in-Law.
Close to the end of 2025, the Bahamas Supreme Court handed down a similar ruling dismissing attempts to modify the composition of the trust charged with running Sandals Resorts.
That motion (also involving Hammersmith) charged that the Cromwell Trust Company could be unduly influenced by Adam Stewart and that there was a risk that the company’s assets could be ‘stolen’ or ‘misused’.
But Bahamas Chief Justice Sir Ian Winder ruled that the directors of the sole trustee are not “incapable of exercising proper fiduciary oversight” of the trust’s assets.
The court further found that there was “no material risk” of asset misuse and ruled that such claims were both “baseless” and “insufficient.”