BETWEEN 1. NATIONAL TRANSPORT CLAIMANTS SERVICE LTD. 2. GUINEA GRASS TRANSPORT LTD. 3. LADYVILLE TRANSPORT LTD. 4. HATTIEVILLE TRANSPORT LTD.
|
|
- Imogen Pierce
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE 2008 CLAIM NO. 728 OF 2008 BETWEEN 1. NATIONAL TRANSPORT CLAIMANTS SERVICE LTD. 2. GUINEA GRASS TRANSPORT LTD. 3. LADYVILLE TRANSPORT LTD. 4. HATTIEVILLE TRANSPORT LTD. AND 1. THE TRANSPORT BOARD. DEFENDANTS 2. CHIEF TRANSPORT OFFICER. Mrs. Lisa Shoman S.C., for the claimants. Ms. Lois Young S.C., for the defendants. AWICH CJ Ag D E C I S I O N 1. Notes: An application for court order to dismiss claim against public authorities on the ground that notice of claim was not given under s:3 of Public Authorities Protection Act, Cap. 31; and on the ground that circumstances have changed since the claim was filed. 2. This decision is in the joint interlocutory application dated , by the defendants, the Transport Board and the Chief Transport Officer. In the application the defendants ask for court order dismissing the substantive claim brought by the four claimants. Their 1
2 first ground was that they were and are still public authorities; and that under S: 3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, cap 31, a prior notice must be given to them before a claim is brought one month after, against them. They said that no notice of this claim had been given to them before the claim was filed at court on The second ground was that because of the long delay in concluding the claim circumstances have changed. 3. In the alternative, the defendants in their application asked for an order discharging an interim injunction order made by this court on , restraining the defendants until determination of the claim or until further order, from proceeding to grant road service permits for operating omnibuses on routes in parts of the northern zone of the country, for which the defendants had not yet granted permit for the period The ground given by the defendants for the alternative order was that, because of the delay in concluding the trial of the claim, circumstances have changed, the buses on the northern routes are now overcrowded, and some other operators without permits, snipers, are unlawfully carrying passengers. 2
3 4. On the case file there is another joint interlocutory application dated ; it has been filed by three of the claimants, National Transport Service Ltd; Guinea Grass Transport Ltd., and Ladyville Transport Ltd. In the application the claimants ask for court order allowing three amendments to the claim filed on The first proposed amendment was to include in the claim, judicial review of the decisions of the Transport Board and the Chief Transport Officer in respect of the issuance of road service permits for the year to the claimants for Ladyville and for the Western and Southern routes. They may have meant the year , not The second proposed amendment was to include in the claim, judicial review of the decisions of the defendants refusing permits to the claimants for road service in Ladyville, Western route and Southern routes, for the year ; and granting the permits to others. The third proposed amendment was to include a request for the issuing of certiorari and quashing orders in regard to the decisions referred to in the first and second proposed amendments. The amendments in effect seek to bring into this claim filed in 2008, decisions taken in regard to road service permits for the permit years stated as year
4 5. I decided to hear first, the first application filed on , by the defendants, and depending on the outcome, I would proceed to hear the application filed on , by the claimants. It would not be necessary if my decision went against the claimants, for me to hear the claimant s application for permission to amend their claim. 6. Regretably the substantive judicial review claim for which permission was granted on , and in which the two interlocutory applications have been made, has not progressed in the manner anticipated. The permission granted included an order that the judicial review claim be filed within 14 days. The order restated R. 56.4(11) of the Supreme Court (Civil Procedures) Rules The time stipulated in the court order was not complied with, and time was extended by permission of court. Several additional affidavits for both sides were allowed to be filed late. Several adjournments were requested by both sides during the first hearing and were granted. On one occasion the Registry did not send notice of hearing to the defendants; on two occasions the dates of hearing at the Supreme Court clashed with engagement of counsel at the Court of Appeal. On the last occasion adjournment was sought and granted on the ground 4
5 that counsel for the claimants was attending as a senator, a sitting of the Senate. Swift proceeding intended in judicial review claim has been lost. 7. On hindsight, I may have too readily granted adjournments. The two applications on the case file have found place in these proceedings because of the extended time taken to have the substantive judicial review claim for which permission was given concluded. 8. The claim itself without the proposed amendments, concerned decisions taken in October The subject matters of the decision were road service permits for the period 19 th October 2008 to 18 th October That period has past. In the event the claimants succeeded in their claim, the court will no longer be able to grant all the reliefs prayed for because some reliefs are now impossible. Declaratory reliefs and damages may be possible, but reliefs that are injunctive in nature in regard to road service permit year , are no longer possible. Omnibus services for which permits were granted have already been carried out for the period in question namely,
6 9. Determination The application of the defendants for the main order dismissing the claim altogether raises the question of statutory interpretation. The defendants say, they are public authorities, and that to commence this claim the claimants ought to have given notice to the defendants one month prior, under s: 3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act; notice was not given at all by the claimants, so the claim should be dismissed. 10. The claimants agree that the defendants are public authorities. However, they contend that: (1) giving notice under s: 3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act does not apply to claims for judicial review and (2) in any case, the many complaints made by the claimants to the defendants, and the case papers commencing proceedings were sufficient notice, they disclosed all the information that would be supplied in notice under s: 3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act. 11. Section 3 of the Public Authorities Act states: 6
7 3(1) No writ shall be sued out against, nor a copy of any process be served upon any public authority for anything done in the exercise of his office until one month after notice in writing has been delivered to him, or left at his usual place of abode by the party who intends to sue out such writ or process, or by his attorney or agent, in which notice shall be clearly and explicitly contained the cause of the action, the name and place of abode of the person who is to bring the action and the name and place of abode of the attorney or agent. (2) No evidence of any cause of action shall be produced except of such as is contained in such notice, and no verdict shall be given for the plaintiff unless he proves on the trial that such notice was given, and in default of such proof the defendant shall receive in such action a verdict and costs. 12. According to s: 3 (1), giving notice is required only in regard to claims arising from acts or omissions that are, in the exercise of office, The nature of an act or omission in the exercise of office has been explained in, Eurocaribe Shipping Services Ltd. v Attorney General and Others, Supreme Court Claim No. 287 of Although it was not contended that the decision the subject matter of the substantive claim were not decisions in the exercise of office, I 7
8 had to consider the point. I concluded and confirmed that the decision made by the Transport Board and the Chief Transport Officer in October 2008, were made in the exercise of office, and that notice under s: 3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act was required to bring a claim arising from the decisions. 13. The main question raised in this application under s: 3 of the Act, has been decided conclusively by the Court of Appeal of Belize in the case of Castillo v Corozal Town Board and Acosta 1 BZ LR 365. In the case the Court of Appeal held that prior notice of one month to Corozal Town Board, a public authority, was required before the claim was commenced at court, and that giving notice and proof that notice had been given were mandatory. The Court of appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial court dismissing the claim for damages against Corozal town Board. At Page 368, Sir John Summerfield, President of the Court said this about the section: It makes provision for two important matters. Section 3(1) makes provision for a mandatory condition precedent to the institution of a suit against a public authority (as defined), namely the delivery of the notice in writing in the terms stipulated. 8
9 Compliance with that condition precedent is wholly within the control of the would be plaintiff. This measure is obviously designed to protect the public interest. Section 3(2) gives teeth to section 3(1). It provides for proof at the trial that such notice was given in the terms required, in default whereof judgment is to be entered for the defendant with costs. That provision is also mandatory. 14. From that, I am obliged to decide that formal notice in writing, specifying the cause of action, the names and addresses of the claimants, and name and address of their attorney ought to have been given one month prior to commencing this substantive claim. Informal communication and informal information obtained by the defendants otherwise cannot be deemed notice under s: 3 of the Act. 15. In the alternative, the claimants contend that notice under s: 3 of the Public Authorities Act was not required in a judicial review claim or a constitutional claim. Learned counsel Ms. Lisa Shoman S.C., for the claimants, relied on the words. writ, in the clause: No writ shall be sued out against nor a copy of any process be served upon any public authority. She submitted that a writ issues only in action (now a 9
10 general claim), not in a Crown side proceeding. She contrasted a writ with a fixed date claim (formerly originating summons). 16. The short answer is that s: 3 mentions writ and any process. A court process is any document by which a judicial process is instituted; an original process is a court document that compels the appearance of the defendant. So by stating that, no writ shall be sued, nor a copy of any process be served, section 3 includes a claim that may be commenced by a fixed date claim. A constitutional claim may be excluded from the requirement for notice not because of the court process by which it is commenced. There is a difference between a constitutional claim and a judicial review claim. 17. In the Eurocaribe case learned Chief Justice Conteh held that notice under s: 3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act was required in claims including judicial review claims. I agree. 18. My decision in the application dated , by the Transport Board and the Chief Transport Officer, is that the application is granted on the ground that the claimants ought to have given notice 10
11 under s:3 of the Public Authorities Protection Act to the defendants, one month before the claimants commenced this claim against the defendants. The claim dated , of National Transport Ltd., Guinea Grass Transport Ltd., Ladyville Transport Ltd., and Hattieville Transport Ltd., is dismissed. The interim orders including the injunction order, made on , are discharged. 19. It is not necessary to decide the question whether the alternative order for discharge of the injunction order made on , may be made. 20. The claimants shall pay the costs of the defendants. 21. Delivered this Thursday the 27 th day of January 2011 At the Supreme Court Belize City Present to note judgment are: Mr. A Sylvester for the claimants respondents; Miss M. Perdomo for the defendants applicants; Sam Lungole Awich Acting Chief Justice Sam Lungole Awich Ag. CJ 27 th January
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2010
CLAIM NO. 778 OF 2010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2010 BETWEEN GLENN TILLETT CLAIMANT AND LOIS YOUNG BARROW NESTOR VASQUEZ SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD DEFENDANTS NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF BELIZE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ
CLAIM NO 275 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD 2014 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review AND IN THE MATTER of section 13 of the Belize City Council Act, Cap 85
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009
CLAIM NO. 811 OF 2009 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009 BETWEEN NEWCO LIMITED CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. ERIC EUSEY 1 ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT 2. MARILYN ORDONEZ 2 ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT 3. ATTORNEY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 CLAIM NO: 317 OF 2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT OF BELIZE APPLICANT AND 1.BELIZE TELEMEDIA LTD 2.BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. 1 ST DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
More informationBELIZE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT CHAPTER 31 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009
CLAIM NO. 743 OF 2009 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009 BETWEEN BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED First Claimant/Respondent THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Second Claimant/Respondent AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2007
CLAIM NO. 347 OF 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2007 IN THE MATTER OF section 42 of the Laws of Property Act, Chapter 190 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2000. BETWEEN 1. VICTOR WILLIAM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 435 2011 (BETWEEN: ( (FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF BELIZE ( AND ( (THE NATIONAL SPORTS COUNCIL (THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS (THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BETWEEN MICHAEL WENDLING CLAIMANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CLAIM NO. 339 of 2007 BETWEEN MICHAEL WENDLING CLAIMANT AND 1. EDWARD THORPE LTD DEFENDANTS 2. LARRY THORPE 3. COCO BAY LTD 4. ROBERT LAVERNE 5. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2003 BETWEEN: LYDIA GUERRA PLAINTIFF BELIZE CANE FARMERS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2003 ACTION NO. 46 OF 2003 BETWEEN: LYDIA GUERRA PLAINTIFF AND BELIZE CANE FARMERS ASSOCIATION DEFENDANT Mr. Darlene Vernon for the plaintiff. Mr. Leo Bradley Jr., for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2006 CLAIM NO. 271 of 2006 BETWEEN RAYMOND BROWN APPLICANT/CLAIMANT AND 1. CENTRAL BANK OF BELIZE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT 2. PROVIDENT BANK AND TRUST LIMITED INTERESTED
More information1. BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED FIRST CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT 2. THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED SECOND CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009 CLAIM NO. 743 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED FIRST CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT 2. THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED SECOND CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2011
CLAIM NO. 2 OF 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2011 BETWEEN JOHN TURLEY CLAIMANT AND KEVIN MEYER RHONDA MEYER DEFENDANT INTERESTED PARTY Ms. Estevan Pererra for the claimant/applicant. Mrs. L.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2002 FRANCIS MEJIA LAMBEY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2002 ACTION NO: 4 OF 2002 BETWEEN: RICHARD LAMBEY CLAIMANT RESPONDENT AND FRANCIS MEJIA LAMBEY APPLICANT DEFENDANT Mr. Oswald Twist for the applicant defendant Mr. K.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D 2007 BETWEEN: (PROVIDENT BANK AND TRUST OF CLAIMANT (BELIZE LTD ( (AND ( (BELIZE COMPANIES AND CORPORATE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D 2007 CLAIM NO. 575 OF 2006 BETWEEN: (PROVIDENT BANK AND TRUST OF CLAIMANT (BELIZE LTD ( (AND ( (BELIZE COMPANIES AND CORPORATE (AFFAIRS REGISTRY DEFENDANT Mr. Dean Barrow
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BETWEEN: 1.JOSE LUIS MORENO APPLICANTS 2. RICARDO CORRERA CLAIMANTS (trading as Cormor Gas) AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2008 CLAIM NO: 117 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1.JOSE LUIS MORENO APPLICANTS 2. RICARDO CORRERA CLAIMANTS (trading as Cormor Gas) AND BELIZE NATIONAL L.P.G. LTD RESPONDENT DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED
CLAIM NO. 145 of 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 BETWEEN BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED Claimant AND 1. KEITH ARNOLD First Defendant 2. PHILIP ZUNIGA Second Defendant 3. SHIRE HOLDINGS LIMITED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE BETWEEN CHRISTINE PERRIOTT CLAIMANT BELIZE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE CLAIM NO. 142 of 2007 BETWEEN CHRISTINE PERRIOTT CLAIMANT AND BELIZE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED DEFENDANT CORAM: Hon Justice Sir John Muria Advocates: Ms Lois Young Barrow
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D and A.D BETWEEN: (RANDOLPH HOPE PLAINTIFF ( ( AND (
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 1998 and A.D. 2003 CLAIM NO: 55 OF 1998 CLAIM NO: 60 OF 2003 CLAIM NO: 55 OF 1998 BETWEEN: (RANDOLPH HOPE PLAINTIFF ( ( AND ( (CHARLES MCINTOSH DEFENDANT CLAIM NO:
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2012/006 BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST and Appellants [1] THE DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE CLAIM NO. 1019 OF 2009 (BETWEEN ( (ZIPLINE ADVENTURES (BELIZE) LTD ( (AND ( (TRAVELLERS REST LODGE (BELIZE) LTD (d.b.a. JAGUAR PAW RESORT CLAIMANT DEFENDANT Before: Hon Justice
More informationPart 36 Extraordinary Remedies
Alberta Rules of Court 390/68 R427-430 Part 36 Extraordinary Remedies Replevin Recovery of personal property 427 In any action brought for the recovery of any personal property and claiming that the property
More informationCHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections.
CHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Interpretation. PART I INTERPRETATION. PART II SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 2. Right to sue the Government. 3. Liability of the Government
More informationEASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS SKBHCVAP2014/0017 BETWEEN: In the matter of Condominium Property registered as Condominium #5 known as Nelson Spring Condominium
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
CLAIM NO. 336 of 2015 BETWEEN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2015 (CIVIL) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Claimant AND JAMES DUNCAN Defendant Before: The Honourable Madame Justice Griffith Dates of Hearing:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED
CLAIM NO. 400 OF 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 BETWEEN: BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED Claimant AND NOVA TOLEDO LIMITED PROVIDENT BANK AND TRUST OF BELIZE LIMITED Defendant Interpleader Claimant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D THE TRANSPORT BOARD MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2010 CLAIM NO. 380 of 2010 SHERLINE ERNID HAMILTON d.b.a. Skai s Bus Line APPLICANT AND THE TRANSPORT BOARD MINISTER OF TRANSPORT 1 st RESPONDENT 2 nd RESPONDENT Hearings
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 816 of 2009 ZENAIDA MOYA FLOWERS MAYOR OF BELIZE CITY CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANT Hearings 2010 28 th October 14 th December 2011 27
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2008
CLAIM NO. 338 OF 2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2008 THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Applicant/Claimant BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE (on behalf of the Government of Belize) THE MINISTER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LANDS AND FISHERIES PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADE AND COMMERCE
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. 255 OF 2001 BETWEEN: MONICA ROSS Plaintiff and MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LANDS AND FISHERIES PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTER OF FOREIGN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005 CLAIM NO. 331 OF 2005 (TOMASA ALAMILLA (GREGORIA REYES (OYOLA JIMENEZ (GUILLERMO REYES (RAFAEL REYES ( (AND ( (IGNACIO REYES CLAIMANTS DEFENDANT Mr. Aldo Salazar,
More informationJUDGMENT. Bimini Blue Coalition Limited (Appellant) v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas and others (Respondents)
[2014] UKPC 23 Privy Council Appeal No 0060 of 2014 JUDGMENT Bimini Blue Coalition Limited (Appellant) v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas and others (Respondents) From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Sub Registry, San Fernando
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub Registry, San Fernando HCA NO. CIV. 2017-02985 EX PARTE 1. LYNETTE HUGHES, Representative of the Estate of CINDY CHLOE WALDROPT Deceased
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED
CLAIM NO. 145 of 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 BETWEEN BELIZE TELEMEDIA LIMITED Claimant AND 1. KEITH ARNOLD First Defendant 2. PHILIP ZUNIGA Second Defendant 3. SHIRE HOLDINGS LIMITED
More informationGOLDEN RULES OF DRAFTING. Paper by James O Reilly SC Monday 23 rd March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS 1
BAR COUNCIL SEMINAR GOLDEN RULES OF DRAFTING Paper by James O Reilly SC Monday 23 rd March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS 1 II. THE ANATOMY OF AN AFFIDAVIT.1 III. THE ANATOMY OF A
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012 CLAIM NO. 747 of 2011 CHERYL SCHUH ARTHUR SCHUH CLAIMANTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE DEFENDANT Hearings 2012 4 th October 9 th November 11 th December
More informationBZCV2017/001 Page 4104 of /22/2017. IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE
BZCV2017/001 Page 4104 of 4108 11/22/2017 IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE CCJ Application No. BZCV2017/001 BZ Civil Appeal No. 4 of
More informationBERMUDA 1971 : 38 CIVIL APPEALS ACT 1971
Laws of Bermuda BERMUDA 1971 : 38 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Appeals from court of summary jurisdiction to Supreme Court 3 Appeals; as of right or only with leave 4 Notice of intention
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL H.M.B HOLDINGS LIMITED. and
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2002 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL H.M.B HOLDINGS LIMITED and Applicant/Respondent THE CABINET OF ANTIGUA and BARBUDA THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ANTIGUA and BARBUDA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2011/4632 BETWEEN VERNON BARNETT CLAIMANT AND THE PROMOTION ADVISORY BOARD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationCHAPTER 6:05 STATE LIABILITY AND PROCEEDINGS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PART II
State Liability and Proceedings 3 CHAPTER 6:05 STATE LIABILITY AND PROCEEDINGS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PRELIMINARY PART II SUBSTANTIVE LAW 3. Liability
More informationIC Chapter 2. Replevin
IC 32-35-2 Chapter 2. Replevin IC 32-35-2-1 Grounds for action Sec. 1. If any personal goods, including tangible personal property constituting or representing choses in action, are: (1) wrongfully taken
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2003 ACTION NO. 19 of 2003 (HILARIO CASTILLO ( ( BETWEEN ( AND ( ( (PERFECTO CORTEZ SR PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Mr. N. Dujon for the Plaintiff Mr. Leo Bardley, Esq. For the
More informationBERMUDA 1986 : 34 ARBITRATION ACT
Title 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 75 BERMUDA 1986 : 34 ARBITRATION ACT 1986 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I CITATION AND INTERPRETATION 1 Short title and commencement 2 Interpretation PART II CONCILIATION 3
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 ACTION NO. 20 of 2009 CLEMENT CACHO APPLICANT BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENTS Hearings 2009 15 th June 18 th June Mr. Linbert Willis for
More informationBELIZE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT CHAPTER 91 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT CHAPTER 91 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2017-01240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
More informationNo. 11 of An Act to create a Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia, in place of the Supreme Court previously established.
NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT. Short titl. No. 11 of 1961. An Act to create a Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia, in place of the Supreme Court previously established. [Assented to
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE Appellant v BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED and THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Respondents BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Dennis
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BT TRADING LIMITED GEORGE POPESCU ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED
CLAIM NO. 325 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2014 BETWEEN: KEVIN MILLIEN Claimant AND BT TRADING LIMITED GEORGE POPESCU ALPHA SERVICES LIMITED 1 st Defendant 2 nd Defendant 3 rd Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and TREVOR PAYNTER WINDWARD PROPERTIES LIMITED
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 550 OF 1999 BETWEEN: HENRIK LINDVIG Plaintiff and TREVOR PAYNTER WINDWARD PROPERTIES LIMITED Appearances: B Commissiong Esq QC,
More informationCHAPTER 202 FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 202 FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS 1965-37 This Act came into operation on 22nd July, 1965. Amended by: This Act has not been amended LAWS OF BARBADOS CUMULATIVE EDITION 2008, by authority of the Government
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. 2013-01906 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER Claimants AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012 CLAIM NO. 109 of 2012 YOLANDA SCHAKRON MOSES SULPH 1 st CLAIMANT/APPLICANT 2 nd CLAIMANT/APPLICANT AND NOREEN FAIRWEATHER 1 st DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT (Returning
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D., 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D., 2000 ACTION NO. 518 BETWEEN GILDA LEWIS AND PLAINTIFF BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UNIVERSITY OF BELIZE DR. ANGEL CAL DEFENDANTS Before: Hon Justice Sir John Muria 21 May 2010
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012 CLAIM NO. 176 OF 2011 BETWEEN (CLARITA PECH CLAIMANT ( (AND ( (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT FIRST DEFENDANT SECOND DEFENDANT ----- BEFORE
More informationBELIZE OFFSHORE CENTER DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 1. CITY HOLDING LIMITED INTERESTED PARTY 2. IT SOLUTION LIMITED INTERESTED PARTY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE 2007 ACTION NO. 467 OF 2007 BETWEEN: WORLDWIDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED CLAIMANT APPLICANT AND BELIZE OFFSHORE CENTER LTD. DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 1. CITY HOLDING LIMITED
More informationRULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 2007 CONSULTATION DRAFT CONTENTS PART 1 OBJECTIVES AND CASE MANAGEMENT POWERS
RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 2007 CONSULTATION DRAFT CONTENTS Rule Page 1. Orders added PART 1 OBJECTIVES AND CASE MANAGEMENT POWERS Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 81 and 82 ORDER 1A OBJECTIVES
More informationTHE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007
Small Claims Courts Bill, 2007 Section THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART 1 - PRELIMINARY 1 - Short title and commencement 2 - Purpose 3 - Interpretation PART II ESTABLISHMENT
More informationFEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES ORDER 1 REVOCATION, CITATION, SAVINGS, ETC.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES ORDER 1 REVOCATION, CITATION, SAVINGS, ETC. 1. Revocation of Civil Procedure Rules 2000 2. Citation and commencement 3. Saving: Part
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2002
ACTION NO. 408 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2002 SYLVIA JIMENEZ JULIAN KUTE Plaintiffs BETWEEN AND GEORGE CANCHE Defendant BEFORE the Honourable Abdulai Conteh, Chief Justice. Ms. Kadian Lewis
More informationBETWEEN: JENNIFER LONGSWORTH PLAINTIFF AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 ACTION NO. 796 OF 2009 BETWEEN: JENNIFER LONGSWORTH PLAINTIFF AND CHARLESTON CLELAND DEFENDANT Mr. Rodwell Williams SC, for the claimant. Mr. Linbert Willis for
More informationAEROPOST TRINIDAD LIMITED PETER EDWARDS AND VINCY AVIATION SERVICES CARIBBEAN FREIGHT & COURIERS LTD. 2008: November, 17th November, 18th DECISION
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO: 368/2008 BETWEEN: AEROPOST TRINIDAD LIMITED PETER EDWARDS 1st applicant 2nd
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005 CLAIM NO. 175 OF 2005 (ROMEL PALACIO ( BETWEEN (AND ( (BELIZE CITY COUNCIL CLAIMANT DEFENDANT Mr. Dean Lindo, SC, for the Claimant Mr. Edwin Flowers, SC, for the
More informationTHE STATE SUITS LIMITATION BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES (These notes form no part of the Bill but are intended only to indicate its general purport)
THE STATE SUITS LIMITATION BILL 2017 EXPLANATORY NOTES (These notes form no part of the Bill but are intended only to indicate its general purport) The Bill seeks to repeal and replace the existing Crown
More informationSUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1. Preliminary Matters............................ 1-1 Chapter 2. Parties...................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Service......................................
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and. Before: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira. 2013: May 24.
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS SAINT CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT SKBHCVAP2012/0028 THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ADAM BILZERIAN and Appellant [1] GERALD LOU WEINER [2] KATHLEEN
More informationFederal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.
More informationCivil Litigation Forms Library
Civil Litigation Forms Library Notice of Circumstances Giving Rise to Claim and Claim Against Governmental Subdivision, Its Officers, Employees, or Agents Notice of Claim Against State Officer, Employee,
More informationCourt of Appeal Act Chapter C37 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria Arrangement of Sections. Part I General
Court of Appeal Act Chapter C37 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 Arrangement of Sections 1. Number of Justices of the Court of Appeal. Part I General 2. Salaries and allowances of President and Justices
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2001 BETWEEN: JOSE L. REYES PLAINTIFFS AND OTHERS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2001 ACTION NO: 309 OF 2001 BETWEEN: JOSE L. REYES PLAINTIFFS AND OTHERS AND JOHN ZABENEH MAYA KING LTD DEFENDANTS Ms Antoinette Moore for the claimants. V.H. Courtenay,
More informationThe Royal Court Civil Rules, 2007
O.R.C. No. IV of 2007 The Royal Court Civil Rules, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES Rule PART I The overriding objective 1. Statement and application of overriding objective. PART II Service of documents 2. Service
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,
More informationAct of 17 June 2005 no. 90 relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (The Dispute Act)
Act of 17 June 2005 no. 90 relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (The Dispute Act) The structure of the Act Part I The purpose of the Act. Fundamental conditions for hearing civil cases
More informationBEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE OJO JUDGE: BETWEEN:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013 SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/2563/12 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE
More informationRepublic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA RESOLUTION
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC January 22, 2008 THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA RESOLUTION Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson of the Committee
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D.2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D.2011 CLAIM NO: 647 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO PART 56 OF THE SUPREME COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2(1)(b), 2(3),
More informationUnited States Bankruptcy Court. Northern District of California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Marc Voisenat (CSB# 0 0 Broadway, Suite Oakland, Ca. Tel: ( - Fax: ( - Attorney for Debtors Richard Souza Caporale Isabel Ann Caporale United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District of California In
More information. COURT OF APPEAL RULES
. COURT OF APPEAL RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I TITLE AND INTERPRETATION 1 Title 2 Interpretation PART II PURPOSE AND APPLICATION OF THE RULES 3 Purpose of rules 4 Application of the rules 5 Where no
More informationA BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA
A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA 1 EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE BILL, 2018 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Objectives
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2010
CLAIM NO. 846 OF 2010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2010 BETWEEN: 1. BELIZEANS FOR JUSTICE 1 st Claimant 2. CITIZENS ORGANISED FOR LIBERTY THROUGH ACTION (COLA) 2 nd Claimant AND THE PRIME MINISTER
More informationCROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT
c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 AND 2005 MICHAEL F. MURPHY AND
THE SUPREME COURT SC No. 172/98 SC No. 129/06 SC No. 293/08 SC Nos. 295 & 296/12 SC No. 320/08 SC No. 276 & 277/12 SC No. 235/06 SC No. 71/06 SC No. 86/06 SC Nos. 278 & 279/12 SC No. 327/08 SC Nos. 275
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D BETWEEN: ROY USHER PLAINTIFF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2004 ACTION NO. 116 of 2004 BETWEEN: ROY USHER PLAINTIFF AND LESTER MOODY DEFENDANT Mr. Hubert Elrington S.C., for the plaintiff. Mr. Edwin Flowers S.C., for the defendant.
More informationMBE Constitutional Law Sample
MBE Constitutional Law Sample Approximately 50% of the Constitutional Law questions for each MBE will be based on Individual Rights such as due process, equal protections, and state action. "State Action"
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2011 Claim No: 386 ( NINA SOMKHISHVILI Claimant/Respondent ( BETWEEN ( AND ( ( NIGG, CHRISTINGER & PARTNER Defendants/Applicants (YOSIF SHALOLASHVILI ( PALOR COMPANY
More informationRules of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2008
Rules of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2008 The Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) Order 102 THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE Remarks 1. Definitions (O. 102, r. 1) In this Order the Ordinance means the Companies
More informationPrivate International Law in New Zealand
Private International Law in New Zealand 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 What is "private international law"? 1 1.2 The sources of New Zealand private international law 3 1.3 The scope of this booklet 4 2. WHY BOTHER
More informationFIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998
FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 IN exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 25 of the High Court Act, I hereby make the following Rules: Citation 1.
More informationIN THE SUPEME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D MARSHALL S COMPANY LIMITED KINEA INTERNATIONAL S.A. AND KARINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED DEFENDANT AMIT HOTCHANDANI
IN THE SUPEME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 873 of 2010 MARSHALL S COMPANY LIMITED KINEA INTERNATIONAL S.A. AND KARINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED MIKE HOTCHANDANI AMIT HOTCHANDANI (a.k.a. DANISH HOTCHANDANI)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE U.P KEKEMEKE MOTION NO. FCT/HC/M/389/11 DATE: 23/10/13 BETWEEN: MRS. OLGA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D (Southern Environmental Association -----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2012 CLAIM NO. 147 OF 2012 BETWEEN: (Southern Environmental Association Claimant ( (And ( (Raquel Battle Defendant (Administrator of the Estate of (Edlin Leslie -----
More informationTHE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT OF SINGAPORE
THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT OF SINGAPORE The laws governing private commercial arbitration in Singapore are divided into domestic and international regimes. There is a third regime that deals with
More informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 56, No. 9, 26th January, 2017
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 56, No. 9, 26th January, 2017 No. 6 of 2017 Second Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More informationArbitration Act, 1950
Arbitration Act, 1950 14 GEO. 6. CH. 27 Section - ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ARBITRATION Effect of Arbitration Agreements, &c. 1. 2. Authority of arbitrators and umpires to
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW) Gribben s (Sally) Application [2015] NIQB 27
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NIQB 27 Ref: WEA9537 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 03/02/2015 (subject to editorial corrections)* WEATHERUP J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2003 ACTION NO: 281 OF 2003 (CEDRIC D. FLOWERS ( ( (AND ( ( (KAY L. MENZIES (BELIZE PORT AUTHORITY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Mr. Rodwell Williams, SC, for the claimant.
More informationcourt of appeal rules
court of appeal rules TABLE OF CONTENTS Court of Appeal 1 Title PART I Title and Interpretation 2 Interpretation Part II Purpose and Application of the Rules 3 Purpose of rules 4 Application of the rules
More information