IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between FIDEL RAMPERSAD RAJ KAMAL REDDY AVUTHU RYAN RICHARDSON VISHAM BHIMULL SHAUN LYNCH AND
|
|
- Martin Blankenship
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No: CV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between FIDEL RAMPERSAD RAJ KAMAL REDDY AVUTHU RYAN RICHARDSON VISHAM BHIMULL SHAUN LYNCH AND Claimants MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS ASSSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honourable Mr Justice James C. Aboud Dated: 23 January 2015 Representation: Ms Kandace Bharath for the claimants Mr Rishi Dass instructed by Ms Nesha Abiraj for the defendant REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 9 December 2014 I determined the defendant s notice of application of 18 July It sought to strike out the claim form, the amended claim form and the statement of case Page 1 of 10
2 for the reason that the claim form had been filed without a statement of case and that permission to do so had never been granted. Background 2. The claim form was filed together with a notice of application on 16 April A statement of case did not accompany it. The notice of application sought an interim injunction preventing the defendant from holding an election of its officers on the next day, namely 17 April The gist of the claimants case is revealed in the reliefs set out in the claim form. The claimants allege that they are members of the defendant association who intended to contest the election of its officers and that they are being prevented from doing so by the executive who consider their nomination papers to have been submitted out of time. The claimants say that the deadline for submission was published in a notice carried on the defendant s website and they rely on the efficacy of that notice. Further details of the claim are contained in the affidavits in support of the injunction. The court s file reveals that the application was heard after hours on 16 April 2014 by the emergency judge who, early on the following morning, granted an injunction restraining the defendant from holding the election. 3. The file reveals two omissions on the part of the claimants attorneys. The first concerns the filing and service of an amended claim form. The emergency judge granted an order on the night of 16 April permitting the amendment of the claim form. It was supposed to be filed and served on 17 April but was not. On 23 April 2014 the claimants filed a notice of application to extend the time for filing and service of their amended claim form from 17 April 2014 to 22 April However, they did not serve the application on the defendant. The matter came up for hearing before me on 12 May 2014 and the claimants, although they had filed it on that day, still had not served the amended claim form on the defendant. The amendment was not radical. It inserted an allegation that the refusal to allow the claimants to participate in the election was a breach of the Rules of the Association. At that hearing the claimants by consent obtained permission to extend the time for filing and service of the amended claim form to 12 May. Page 2 of 10
3 4. The second omission concerned the filing and service of the statement of case. At the hearing on 12 May the defendant s counsel informed the court that no leave had been sought to issue a claim form without a statement of case and that the defendant was not waiving this default. As a matter of record, the statement of case was in fact filed on 12 May but it had not, in that short space of time, reached my file in court. I am not sure whether the defendant s attorneys were aware of this but the claimant s attorney says that she informed the court that it had been filed on that very morning. 5. No order was sought or granted on 12 May 2014 for filing and service of a statement of case out of time. On 24 June 2014, two months and one week after the claim form was filed, the claimants purported to serve the statement of case filed on 12 May No order permitting such service had been sought or granted. Despite the defendant s objection that no permission had been sought to issue the claim form without a statement of case, the claimants had not, up until the date of my decision, filed any application for permission to file a claim form without a statement of case. Law 6. The Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 include these: PART 1 The overriding objective 1.1 (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. (2) Dealing justly with the case includes (a) ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the parties are on an equal footing; (b) saving expense; (c) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to (i) the amount of money involved; (ii) the importance of the case; (iii) the complexity of the issues; and Page 3 of 10
4 (iv) the financial position of each party; (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously; and (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. Application by the court of the overriding objective 1.2 The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it Duty of the parties PART 8 (1) exercises any discretion given to it by the Rules; or (2) interprets the meaning of any rule. 1.3 The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective. The claimant- how to start proceedings 8.1 (1) Proceedings are started by filing in the court office the original and one copy (for sealing) of (a) a claim form; and (b) the claimant s statement of case. Statement of case to be issued and served with claim form 8.2 (1) A claim form may be issued and served without the claimant s statement of case only where (a) any of these Rules requires an affidavit to be filed in support of a claim; (b) the claimant has included in the claim form all the information required by rules 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8; or (c) the court gives permission. (2) The court may only give permission if it is satisfied that (a) the claim must be issued as a matter of urgency and that it is not practicable for the claimant to prepare a statement of case; (b) Page 4 of 10
5 (3) An application for permission may be made without notice but must be supported by evidence. (4) Any order giving permission for the claim form to be served without a statement of case must state a date by which the statement of case must be served. (5) Such date must in no case be more than two months from the date of service of the claim form. (6) A copy of the order must be served with the claim form. Claimant s duty to set out case PART (1) The claimant must include on the claim form or in his statement of case a short statement of all the facts on which he relies. (2) The claim form or the statement of case must identify or annex a copy of any document which the claimant considers necessary to his case. General power of the court to rectify matters where there has been an error of procedure 26.8 (1) This rule applies only where the consequence of failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order has not been specified by any rule, practice direction or court order. (2) An error of procedure or failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings, unless the court so orders. (3) Where there has been an error of procedure or failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, court order or direction, the court may make an order to put matters right. (4) The court may make such an order on or without an application by a party. Reasoning 7. A claim form may only be filed without a statement of case where the Rules require the filing of an affidavit instead of a statement of case, or when all the information required by rules 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8 to be included in the claim form are included, or when permission has been granted by the court to do so (rule 8.2(1) (b)). Any of these situations will suffice to cure the absence of the statement of case. Of the information required to be included in the claim form rule 8.6 provides that the claimant must set out Page 5 of 10
6 a short statement of all the facts on which he relies. Rule 8.8 requires the inclusion of a certificate of truth signed by the claimant or his attorney. The short statement of facts must refer to the specific material that the claimant is relying on to advance his case. In other words, without the statement of these facts the case would make no sense to the defendant. He would be in the dark as to what the claim was all about or why he was being sued. The certificate of truth provides an important assurance to a defendant that the contents of the claim form are declared as the truth. This is the case that you have to answer, I certify it as the truth is what it really amounts to. 8. In cases where permission must be sought the court may only give permission where it is satisfied that the claim must be issued as a matter of urgency and that it is not practicable for the claimant to prepare a statement of case at the same time as the claim form (rule 8.2(2)(a)). An application for permission to file a claim form without a statement of case must be supported by evidence (rule 8.2(3)). In the event that permission is granted the statement of case must be served no later than two months after the service of the claim form. The Rules do not give the court any leeway to provide a longer time for the service of the statement of case. The necessity for promptitude is not difficult to deduce. A defendant must not be placed in the dark as to what claim is brought against him. He should not be made to sit indefinitely under the sword of Damocles, unaware of whether it is made of steel or paper. This is a fundamental goal of rule The Rules do not stipulate when the application for permission must be made. Rule 8.2(6) provides that a copy of the order must be served with the claim form, suggesting that permission should be granted before or upon its issue. If the urgency in filing the claim form makes the filing of a statement of case impractical then the same might be said about the impracticality of making the permission application as well. Nonetheless, in the absence of any specific time stipulation, it seems to me that the Rules contemplate permission being sought prior to or on issuance of the claim form. At any rate, the defendant will know, upon service of the claim form, that permission was granted to issue it without a statement of case, and that that document will be delivered in no more than two months time. The mischief that rule 8.2 seeks to address is the service of a bare claim form without the defendant knowing, as soon as possible, a statement of the case Page 6 of 10
7 that he has to meet. The general philosophy of the CPR is that claims are born whole and capable of being instantly defended. 10. In the case before me the claimants attorneys cannot even generously be described as attentive to their duties. They filed the claim form without the statement of case on 16 April. The emergency judge gave them permission to amend the claim form and to serve it on 17 April. They needed an extension of time to file and serve the amended claim form, which they did on 12 May. They filed the statement of case on 12 May (about one month after the claim form was issued) and served it on 24 June (two months and one week after the claim form was issued). Notwithstanding the complaint of the defendant they never filed an application for permission to issue the claim form without a statement of case. 11. At the hearing of the defendant s application to dismiss the action Mr Dass, who appeared for the defendant forcefully argued that the plain meaning of the Rules must be applied. Rule 8.2(1) was clear, he said. A statement of case may be served only where one of the situations described in that rule obtains, namely, that an affidavit is required instead of a statement of case, or the claim form has included the information required by rules 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8, or where the court gives permission. He said that in the absence of any of these situations the court had no discretion and must dismiss the action. He relied on a number of authorities. In Elias Alexander v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, (unreported), decision of Dean-Armorer J, 16 February 2012, a strict approach was applied in a case where there was no statement of the facts relied on in the claim form and no permission had been sought. The claim was dismissed. However, I note that the claim as disclosed in the claim form did not, in the learned judge s opinion, disclose a cause of action, and bordered on being ludicrous. 12. Mr Dass also relied on Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 a decision of the English Court of Appeal. In that case the claimant s solicitors failed to serve the claim form and statement of case within the four-month time frame specified by the Rules. They did not, in their application to extend the time, include any reason for their failure to do so. It was held that the reason must be provided and, in the absence of such Page 7 of 10
8 a reason, the court had no discretion to extend the time, and thus could not utilize the slip rule contained in Rule 3.10 (which equates with our rule 26.8). 13. Ms Bharath, for the claimant, emphasised that all the material particulars of the claim were contained in the reliefs in the claim form, that there were five affidavits filed in the matter, and that the defendant s counsel attended the contested ex parte hearing on the night of 16 April and fully participated. She submitted that the criteria to be applied in an application to dismiss were qualitatively different from those to be applied in an application for permission, in the main because the consequences to the claimants were draconian. 14. Having heard arguments I dismissed the defendant s notice of application. My decision was based on the special circumstances of this case. In my view, it cannot rightly be said that the defendant did not have a clear understanding of the case it had to meet. Its counsel attended the hearing before the emergency judge and was privy to the five affidavits filed in the injunction proceedings. Annexed to these affidavits were all the documents required to assert the claimant s case, including detailed pre-action letters exchanged between the parties. The issues to be decided revolve around matters that are well-known to the parties, namely, whether or not the claimants are entitled to participate in the elections by virtue of their reliance of the notice published on the defendant s website. It is not a case like Elias Alexander that involved a dubious claim in circumstances where the claim form was bereft of information. It would be unreal to imagine that there was any doubt in the instant case as to what claim needed to be defended. In addition, the emergency judge, in granting permission to file and serve an amended claim form on the night of the hearing, must be taken to have approved its filing and service in the absence of a statement of case. No objection was taken to this course of action on 16 April. 15. Any examination of the facts surrounding the absence of a statement of case must necessarily acknowledge that the claimants moved the court for the injunction on the night before the election. The fact that there was an urgency cannot be gainsaid by any party. Had an application for permission been filed pursuant to rule 8.2(2) there would Page 8 of 10
9 have been little doubt that it would have been granted. I would say that such an application is rather routine and almost always unopposed. To say that there are no facts presented to the court to allow it to consider the grant of permission is somewhat myopic. While it is true that no affidavit was filed in support of a permission application it is not far to see what such an affidavit would contain. 16. Part 8.2 does not specify the consequence of failing to obtain permission to file a claim form without a statement of case. If it did so then the court would have no power under rule 26.8 to rectify an error of procedure or a failure to comply with a rule. The decision to make an order to put matters right (26.8(3)) is one of discretion. There was sufficient material before me to exercise that discretion: the reliefs in the claim form contained sufficient assertions to put the defendant on notice of what the claim was about; the claim form contained a certificate of truth; the affidavits were fully explanatory and were in the possession of the defendants since 16 April; and the emergency judge granted permission to file and serve an amended claim form on 16 April knowing that there was no accompanying statement of case. Further, the statement of case had been belatedly filed two months and one week after the claim form, and before the defendant s strike out application. This is one week beyond the time that the emergency judge could have given, had permission been sought. In addition, and apart from these considerations, had an application for permission been filed on the grounds of urgency there would have been little doubt that it would not have been granted, or even opposed. 17. To my mind the dismissal of the claimants action would have had a nuclear effect and would not have promoted the overriding objective of dealing justly with the case. The overriding objective must be given effect when exercising a discretion or interpreting a rule (rule 1.1). There was an injunction in place preventing the holding of an election. The injunction would have immediately disappeared along with the action. It is either that the elections would have then been held excluding the claimants participation or that a fresh action for an injunction would need to be filed to prevent its holding. While it is true that the defendant s elections have been held up I am not sure that the blame for this must necessarily be attributed to the delay in serving the statement of case. There are ample and effective mechanisms to vacate or set aside injurious injunctive orders but they Page 9 of 10
10 have deliberately not been activated, save the procedural mechanism now obliquely utilised in the instant application. 18. In order to achieve the overriding objective I dismissed the defendant s application and granted permission to the claimant to make an application for permission to file the amended claim form without a statement of case. I guarded that order by specifying that if the permission application was not filed by 16 December the action would stand dismissed. To address any prejudice inherent in my order I directed that the claimants should pay the costs of the defendant s unsuccessful application, which I assessed in the sum of $21,000. James C. Aboud Judge Page 10 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND RULING. that he was a prison officer and that on the 17 th June, 2006, he reported for duty at the
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2010/2501 BETWEEN ELIAS ALEXANDER Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER APPEARANCES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-04731 BETWEEN KRISENDAYE BALGOBIN RAMPERSAD BALGOBIN Claimants AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO First
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Civil Appeal No. P-186 of 2016 Claim No. CV 04374 of 2015 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. P- 190 of 2016 Claim No. CV 04374 of 2015 BETWEEN RAIN FOREST RESORTS LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2013 03519 BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Ronnie
More informationPILOT PART 1 THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE
ANNEX A: PILOT PARTS 1-5 Contents of this Part PILOT PART 1 THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE The overriding objective Rule 1.1 Participation of P Rule 1.2 Duties to further the overriding objective Court s duty
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PADMA DASS AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-03309 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PADMA DASS AND Claimant RAMNATH BALLY SHAZMIN BALLY Defendants Before the Honourable Justice Frank Seepersad
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO JUDGMENT
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2010-05237 BETWEEN MIGUEL REGIS Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honorable Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2016-01971 BETWEEN DANE DURHAM Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV NO. 2014-02019 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CHAPTER 7:08 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTION CASE MANAGEMENT PILOT PART 1 GENERAL
PRACTICE DIRECTION CASE MANAGEMENT PILOT PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 This Practice Direction is made under rule 9A of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 ( CoPR ). It provides for a pilot scheme for the management
More informationBefore : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS Between : - and -
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1034 Case No: B5/2016/0387 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM Civil and Family Justice Centre His Honour Judge N Bidder QC 3CF00338 Royal Courts
More information2017 No (L. 16) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Court of Protection Rules 2017
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2017 No. 1035 (L. 16) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES The Court of Protection Rules 2017 Made - - - - 26th October 2017 Laid before Parliament 30th October 2017
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 information(LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH BURKE, DECEASED) DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RONNIE BOODOOSINGH
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2007-01224 BETWEEN CLARENCE ASHBY CLINTON ASHBY WAYNE ASHBY LYNTON ASHBY CLAIMANTS AND STEPHEN MOSES (LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RHONDA TAYLOR. And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2009-00226 Between RHONDA TAYLOR And PRIEST TITRE PRESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ANDY SOOKHOO LATCHMAN BOLA INDUSTRIAL RENTALS LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RHEANN CHUNG DEXTER ST LOUIS AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TABLE TENNIS ASSOCIATION
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No CV 2017-04608 BETWEEN RHEANN CHUNG DEXTER ST LOUIS Claimants AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TABLE TENNIS ASSOCIATION Defendant Before
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV2018-00517 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY WINSTON SUTTON (THE SUBJECT OF A WARRANT OF ARREST) FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 44 of 2014 BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES Appellant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent PANEL: Mendonça, J.A.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2015 01715 Floyd Homer BETWEEN Lawrence John Claimants AND Stanley Dipsingh Commissioner of State Lands Ian Fletcher First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2010 01117 BETWEEN CRISTAL ROBERTS First Claimant ISAIAH JABARI EMMANUEL ROBERTS (by his next of kin and next friend Ronald Roberts)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT AND SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED. And EDUCATION FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED [EFCL] And
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2017-02463 Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT AND SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED Claimant And EDUCATION FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED [EFCL] And
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CA No. 34 of 2013 CV No. 03690 of 2011 PANEL: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry, Tobago) BETWEEN AND REASONS
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry, Tobago) Claim No: CV 2009-2373 BETWEEN SEAN EVERT DENOON CLAIMANT AND OLIVER SALANDY DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE LLOYD CHARLES AND NORTH WEST REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO *********************
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2008-02668 HCA 1454 of 1999 BETWEEN LLOYD CHARLES DIPNARINE MUNGAL Claimants AND NORTH WEST REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY THE ATTORNEY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN REPUBLIC BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO. Alvin Pariaghsingh appearing Mr. Beharry instructed by Anand Beharrylal
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CV: 2009-02354 BETWEEN LUTCHMAN LOCHAN TARADATH LOCHAN AND ASHKARAN JAGPERSAD REPUBLIC BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO First Claimant
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2015-03128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.
More informationIN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (APPEALS) County Court 35 Vernon Street Liverpool HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER
IN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (APPEALS) A23YJ619 County Court 35 Vernon Street Liverpool 28 th April 2016 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER B e t w e e n: BRENDA DAWRANT Claimant/Respondent and PART AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2013-03950 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE In the matter of an Application to enlarge the Estate of Batoolan Mohammed (Deceased) who died on the 24 th January 1979
More informationThe overriding objective.. Rule 1.1 Application of the overriding objective by the court Rule 1.2 Duty of parties.rule 1.3
Contents of this Part PART 1 OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE OF THESE RULES The overriding objective.. Rule 1.1 Application of the overriding objective by the court Rule 1.2 Duty of parties.rule 1.3 The overriding
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2013-004233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT CHAPTER 35:01 AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV NO. 2010-04129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICER COMPLAINTS DIVISION TO INSTITUTE TWO DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
More informationST. GEORGE WEST COUNTY PORT OF SPAIN PETTY CIVIL COURT
ST. GEORGE WEST COUNTY PORT OF SPAIN PETTY CIVIL COURT RULING CITATION: Raymond Alec Roberts v. Selwyn Herbert TITLE OF COURT: Port of Spain Petty Civil Court FILE NO(s): No. 252 of 2011 DELIVERED ON:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIONS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIONS 1. This Pre-Action Protocol applies to commercial actions as defined by Order 72 of the Rules of the Court of
More informationRuling On the Application to Strike Out the Re-Amended Claim Form and Statement of Case
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO In the High Court of Justice Claim No. CV2015-01091 CHANTAL RIGUAD Claimant AND ANTHONY LAMBERT Defendant Appearances: Claimant: Defendant: Alexia Romero instructed
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN FRANCIS VINCENT AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-01217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN FRANCIS VINCENT AND Claimant Before: Master Alexander MERLENE VINCENT First Defendant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO H.C.A. NO. 1688 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE NATIONAL LOTTERIES CONTROL BOARD FOR LEAVE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh AND Ravi Dass AND Carl Mohammed
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2012-00434 BETWEEN Evelyn Phulmatti Ranjitsingh Joseph Claimant AND Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh
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 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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN QUANTUM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND NEWGATE ENTERPRISES CO. LTD.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-00338 BETWEEN QUANTUM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND NEWGATE ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. Claimant Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT AND AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2016-01420 BETWEEN RICKY PANDOHEE CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT AND THE PRESIDENT,
More informationECONO CAR RENTALS LIMITED GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2013-00852 BETWEEN ECONO CAR RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND CINDY CHARLES GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Co-Defendant NAGICO INSURANCE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JUDITH JONES
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2014-02620 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN TERRENCE AND CHARLES Claimant CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF First Defendant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Second
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MUKESH SIRJU VIDESH SAMUEL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINDIAD AND TOBAGO DECISION
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-03454 BETWEEN MUKESH SIRJU VIDESH SAMUEL Claimants AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINDIAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN TARANDAYE DILRAJ AND KHADARNATH GILDHARE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO) LIMITED DECISION
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA S 570 of 2001 BETWEEN TARANDAYE DILRAJ Plaintiff AND KHADARNATH GILDHARE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO) LIMITED Defendants Before:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV No. 2011-00818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between SURESH PATEL Claimant And THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Defendant Dated 25 th June, 2013 Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between ROBERTO CHARLES AND SHASTRI PRABHUDIAL
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2015-02739 Between ROBERTO CHARLES BHAMINI MATABADAL Claimants AND SHASTRI PRABHUDIAL Defendant Before The Honourable Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION TRUST COMPANY LIMITED (JAMAICA) LIMITED LIMITED (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2010 CD 00086 BETWEEN FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CLAIMANT AND DELROY HOWELL 1 ST DEFENDANT AND KENARTHUR
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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LENNOX OFFSHORE SERVICES LIMITED AND DECISION
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: CV2010-00536 BETWEEN LENNOX OFFSHORE SERVICES LIMITED AND CLAIMANT HALIBURTON TRINIDAD LIMITED DEFENDANT DECISION Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2010-04494 BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE Claimant AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION BASDEO MULCHAN LLOYD CROSBY Defendants BEFORE
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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between DOREEN ALEXANDER-DURITY. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. 2013-01303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between DOREEN ALEXANDER-DURITY Applicant/Intended Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent/Intended
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN (1) CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (2) COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD) LIMITED AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2011-02140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN (1) CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (2) COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD) LIMITED AND (1) LAWRENCE DUPREY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MONTSERRAT CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D GALLOWAY HARDWARE & BUILDING MATERIALS LTD
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT Claim No. MNIHCV2014/0024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MONTSERRAT CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2014 Between: DANTZLER INC. and GALLOWAY HARDWARE & BUILDING MATERIALS LTD Claimant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. San Fernando BETWEEN MCLEOD RICHARDSON AND AVRIL GEORGE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando Claim No. CV2017-01755 BETWEEN MCLEOD RICHARDSON Claimant AND AVRIL GEORGE Defendant Before Her Honour Madam Justice Eleanor J.
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 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 COURT OF APPEAL. and THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/023 BETWEEN: ROLAND BROWNE Applicant/Intended Appellant/Claimant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (No longer a party) First Defendant THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DONALDSON-HONEYWELL
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV: 2013-04300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LAKHPATIYA BARRAN (also called DOWLATIAH BARRAN) CLAIMANT AND BALMATI BARRAN RAJINDRA BARRAN MAHENDRA BARRAN FIRST DEFENDANT
More informationJUDGMENT. Super Industrial Services Ltd and another (Respondents) v National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Trinity Term [2018] UKPC 17 Privy Council Appeal No 0049 of 2017 JUDGMENT Super Industrial Services Ltd and another (Respondents) v National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd (Appellant) (Trinidad
More informationEMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) ORDER 2016
Arrangement EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) ORDER 2016 Arrangement Article PART 1 3 INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL 3 1 Interpretation... 3 2 Overriding objective... 4 3 Time... 5 PART 2 5
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DENISE VIOLET STEVENS
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2013/0069 BETWEEN: DENISE VIOLET STEVENS and Claimant LUXURY HOTELS INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LENNOX PETROLEUM SERVICES LIMITED. And ARTEMIS ENERGY LIMITED NICHOLAS ROGER MIKE ABIGAIL DE SOUZA
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CV 2017-04683 BETWEEN LENNOX PETROLEUM SERVICES LIMITED Applicant And ARTEMIS ENERGY LIMITED NICHOLAS ROGER MIKE ABIGAIL DE SOUZA
More informationUnited Kingdom (England and Wales) Litigation Guide IBA Litigation Committee
The Process of a Typical Commercial Case United Kingdom (England and Wales) Litigation Guide IBA Litigation Committee John Reynolds johnreynolds@whitecase.com Clare Semple csemple@whitecase.com Amanda
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED PC KAREN RAMSEY #13191 PC KERN PHILLIPS #16295 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PAUL HACKSHAW. and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV2008/0827 BETWEEN: PAUL HACKSHAW Claimant and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY Defendant APPEARANCES:
More informationIn the High Court of Justice JOE-ANN GLANVILLE DAVID WALCOTT AND HELLER SECURITY SERVICES 1996 LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO In the High Court of Justice Claim No. CV2013-03429 JOE-ANN GLANVILLE DAVID WALCOTT Claimants AND HELLER SECURITY SERVICES 1996 LIMITED Defendant Appearances: Claimant:
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 informationBefore: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES (Chairman) CLARE POTTER DERMOT GLYNN BETWEEN: -v- COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY Respondent.
Neutral citation [2014] CAT 10 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No.: 1229/6/12/14 9 July 2014 Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES (Chairman) CLARE POTTER DERMOT GLYNN Sitting as a Tribunal in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP MYRTLE DORTOTHY PARTAP
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN Civ. App. No. S051 of 2017 CV No. 2013-04212 BETWEEN CRISTOP LIMITED Appellant/Plaintiff AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP First Respondent/Defendant
More informationGuernsey case management and civil proceedings
JERSEY GUERNSEY LONDON BVI SINGAPORE GUERNSEY BRIEFING August 2015 Guernsey case management and civil proceedings Proactive case management is a concept that pervades modern Guernsey civil procedure. This
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between AFRICAN OPTION. And DAVID WALCOTT. And BANK OF BARODA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED
THE REPUBIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2013-05221 Between AFRICAN OPTION First Claimant And DAVID WALCOTT Second Claimant And BANK OF BARODA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. IRMA PAULETTE ROBERT qua Administratrix of the Estate of her minor son JERMAL aka JAMAL ROBERT [deceased] and
SAINT LUCIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.29 OF 2007 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IRMA PAULETTE ROBERT qua Administratrix of the Estate of her minor son JERMAL aka JAMAL ROBERT [deceased] and Appellant 1. CYRUS FAULKNER
More informationBETWEEN CLINTON NOEL AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2014-595 BETWEEN CLINTON NOEL Claimant AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Boodoosingh Appearances:
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationJUDGMENT. Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica)
Easter Term [2018] UKPC 12 Privy Council Appeal No 0011 of 2017 JUDGMENT Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica before Lord
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between PAUL CHOTALAL. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2014-00155 Between PAUL CHOTALAL Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF EASTERN CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1995 BETWEEN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2015-04009 IN THE MATTER OF EASTERN CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1995 BETWEEN
More informationCARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE APPELLATE JURISDICTION RULES 2017
CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE APPELLATE JURISDICTION RULES 2017 In exercise of the powers conferred on the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice pursuant to Article 21 of the Agreement Establishing
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CHARLES MITCHELL APPLICANT AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-02391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CHARLES MITCHELL APPLICANT AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD AND TRINIDAD
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2016-03157 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PART 56.3 OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1998
More informationA & A MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS AND COMPANY LIMITED PETROLEUM COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-01244 BETWEEN A & A MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS AND COMPANY LIMITED CLAIMANT AND PETROLEUM COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT BEFORE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED AND LOUIS ANDRE MONTEIL RICHARD TROTMAN STONE STREET CAPITAL LIMITED
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2010-01352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED AND LOUIS ANDRE MONTEIL RICHARD TROTMAN STONE STREET CAPITAL LIMITED FIRST
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. PAN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED Defendant
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2015-003645 BETWEEN MAHARAJ 2002 LIMITED Claimant AND PAN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND JUDGMENT- PROCEDURAL APPLICATION
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2009-00618 BETWEEN ELGEEN ROBERTS-MITCHELL Claimant AND LINCOLN RICHARDSON Defendant Before the Honorable Mr. Justice V. Kokaram
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RYAN RAMPERSAD FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. 2015-01543 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RYAN RAMPERSAD FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND IN THE MATTER OF THE
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 BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER REASONS
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. Cv. 2010-03934 BETWEEN RANDY CHARLES CLAIMANT AND MARION PHILLIPS DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER APPEARANCES Ms.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2012-00877 Between BABY SOOKRAM (as Representative of the estate of Sonnyboy Sookram, pursuant to the order of Mr. Justice Mon
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017 (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN MARIA MOGUEL AND Claimant/Counter-Defendant CHRISTINA MOGUEL Defendant/Counter-Claimant Before: The Honourable Madame Justice
More informationElements of a Civil Claim
Elements of a Civil Claim This presentation provides an overview of the elements of a civil claim, with particular reference to construction claims, and looks at each dispute resolution option in the context
More informationIN THE MATrER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE MATTER OF THE REFERENDUM (ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION) ACT 2009
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 371 OF 2009 IN THE MATrER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
More information2010 No. 791 COPYRIGHT
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2010 No. 791 COPYRIGHT The Copyright Tribunal Rules 2010 Made - - - - 15th March 2010 Laid before Parliament 16th March 2010 Coming into force - - 6th April 2010 The Lord Chancellor
More informationEMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS
EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 1. Front sheets... 2 2. Applications to and communications with the Court... 3 3. Provision of copies of authorities... 4 4. Final submissions at hearing...
More information