IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND
|
|
- Kristopher Hodges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 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 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY LISA NANHOO-CHAITRAM TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TO GRANT PERMISSION TO NARINE NANANSINGH TO RETAIN AN EXISTING BUILDING ON LOTS 3 AND 5 CARIB STREET, SAN FERNANDO, WHICH SAID DECISION IS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER DATED THE 5 TH DAY OF JUNE 2013 AND/OR THE REFUSAL AND/OR CONTINUING REFUSAL OF THE MINISTER TO REVOKE THE SAID DECISION BETWEEN LISA NANHOO-CHAITRAM AND Claimant THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Defendant Page 1 of 13
2 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JUDITH JONES Appearances: Mr. H.R. Seunath, S.C., for the Claimant. Mr. S. Jairam S.C., and Mr. K. Ramkissoon instructed by Ms. K. Mohammed-Carter for the Defendant. Ruling The Applicant, Lisa Nanhoo-Chaitram, seeks leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Planning and Sustainable Development, ( the Minister ) contained in a letter dated 5 th June By that letter the Minister granted permission to Narine Nanansingh ( Nanansingh ) pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act ( the Act ) to develop lots 3 and 5 Carib Street San Fernando. The permission relates in part to a lot of land adjacent to that owned by the Applicant. The Minister opposes the grant of leave to the Applicant on two grounds: that (i) there is an alternative remedy available to the Applicant and (ii) the Applicant has delayed in making this application. The facts deposed in support of the application are at this stage not opposed. For the purposes of this application the title the Minister shall be used to refer to all persons holding the portfolio responsible for town planning at the material time. The Applicant and Nanansingh are neighbours and prior to April 2010 shared a common boundary marked by a galvanised fence. In January 2010 Nanansingh commenced construction on his land. Around April 2010 he Page 2 of 13
3 removed the galvanised fence, encroached on the Applicant's land and commenced construction thereon. Complaints were made by the Applicant to the Minister through his south office in this regard. These complaints alleged among other things that Nanansingh was in breach of the terms of planning permission granted to him by the Planning Authority in By a notice dated 7 th February 2011 issued by the Minister Nanansingh was refused permission to develop the land and advised to cease all building operations. In addition, by a letter of advice dated 13 th May 2011 from the relevant Ministry, Nanansingh was advised that he was in breach of the provisions of the Act in that he did not have planning permission for the development being carried on his land. He was further advised that in the absence of such permission enforcement action could be initiated against him by the Minister pursuant to section 16 of the Act. Despite the notice and the letter of advice Nanansingh completed the construction of the building on the land. The Applicant also filed High Court Action CV against Nanansingh. By an order made by consent on 5 th December 2011 in those proceedings ( the consent order ) it was ordered among other things that Nanansingh demolish and remove that portion of the wall and so much of his building within four feet of the Applicant's eastern boundary line on or before 1 st March By a letter dated the 21 st November 2012 the Minister was advised and provided with a copy of the consent order. Page 3 of 13
4 Nanansingh has refused to comply with the consent order and by a claim No CV ( the second action ) now seeks to set aside the consent order. In these subsequent proceedings Nanansingh filed a copy of a notice of grant of permission containing the decision of the Minister the subject of these proceedings. By letter dated 12 th June 2013 the Applicant s Attorneys requested that in the light of the existing order of the High Court the Minister reconsider the permission granted to Nanansingh on the 5 th June This letter also threatened legal action. There has been no response to the said letter. Thereafter on the 26 th July 2013 the Applicant filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Minister s decision. On 31 st July 2013 without notice to or hearing from the Minister I granted the leave sought on condition that the application for judicial review be filed and served within 14 days of the grant of leave. The application was not filed within the time limited and in the circumstances the leave lapsed. In accordance with the order made on the 31 st July however on the 22 nd October 2013, the date fixed for the first CMC Attorneys for both the Applicant and the Minister appeared before me. On that date I confirmed the status of the leave to apply for judicial review granted on the 31 st July. On the 26 th November 2013 this application seeking the same relief as in the first application was filed. With respect to the lack of promptness the Applicant deposes that since the matter involves a breach of public law duties by the Minister and the Minister s continued refusal and /or failure to exercise his statutory power she is of the opinion that she has satisfied the requirements of the rules with respect to promptness. With particular reference to the reasons for delay between the filing of her earlier application and this application the Applicant relies on the inadvertence by Page 4 of 13
5 her Attorneys in not filing the claim as ordered and only serving a filed copy of the application and a copy of the order on the Minister and the Solicitor General. She further deposes to the fact that the offices of her Attorneys were closed for the entire month of August 2013 and that by the time the offices were reopened the time for compliance with the said order had lapsed. Available Alternative Remedy The Judicial Review Act, Chap7:08 ( the JR Act ) provides that the court shall not grant leave to an applicant for judicial review of a decision where any other written law provides an alternative procedure to question, review or appeal that decision, save in exceptional circumstances. 1 Accordingly an applicant is required by the rules to state whether an alternative form of redress exists and if so why judicial review is more appropriate or why the alternative has not been pursued. 2 In this regard it must be noted that by her application the Applicant states that no alternative form of redress is available to her. Strictly speaking therefore the Applicant is not totally incorrect in this statement in that in accordance with the JR Act there is no other written law which provides the Applicant with the ability to question or challenge the Minister s decision to grant planning permission to Nanansingh. The JR Act apart however it is trite law that judicial review is a remedy of last resort. Courts have consistently stated that if other means of redress are conveniently and effectively available to a party they ought ordinarily to be used before resort to judicial review 3 It is now accepted 1 Section 9 of the Judicial Review Act chapter 7:08 2 Part 56.3 (3) (c) Civil Proceedings rules 1998 as amended 3 Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council[2006]2 AC 465 at paragraph 30. Page 5 of 13
6 however that the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the court but rather is relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion whether or not to grant leave or relief. 4 The Minister submits that not only is there available to the Applicant an alternative remedy in the form of proceedings against Nanansingh but the Applicant has in fact obtained a judgement against him which only needs to be enforced by way of proceedings for contempt. According to the Minister this is an appropriate and equally effective and convenient method of disposing of this matter. The Applicant in response refers to the pending action by Nanansingh seeking to set aside the said order and an undertaking given by the Applicant in those proceedings restraining him from executing the order. The Applicant submits that in these circumstances there is in fact no suitable alternative remedy available to her. I do not accept the submission of the Applicant. While the undertaking is a factor to be taken into consideration in the exercise of my discretion the mere fact that the Applicant has given an undertaking in the pending action cannot prevent the pursuit of private proceedings against Nanansingh from being a suitable alternative remedy. At the end of the day it cannot be disputed that the aim of the Applicant in both proceedings is to prevent the continued trespass on her land and nuisance to her as a result of the actions of Nanansingh. It is clear that the Applicant seeks to achieve this end by different means both of which are available to her. That said the remedies sought in these two proceedings, civil and administrative, are not the same. The real question is whether the existence of a remedy in 4 Leech v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison[1988]AC 533at 580 C-D Page 6 of 13
7 damages and for injunctive relief against Nanansingh is, in the circumstances, a more convenient and effective means of redress available to the Applicant. From the facts before me it is clear that the civil action has not worked. Despite its conclusion by way of consent order in 2011 the trespass and nuisance alleged by the Applicant continues. It is clear therefore that in these circumstances the private action can by no means be considered to be an effective remedy. Even if the Applicant were able to enforce the order by way of contempt proceedings the options open to the court by way of such enforcement are limited and do not include the right to break down and remove the building. On the other hand the relief available under the Act, should the Applicant, succeed is much wider and allows the Minister under certain circumstances to enter onto the land and remove the unauthorised building. Further on the facts before me it is open to me to conclude that the Applicant has indeed treated the judicial review procedure as a last resort she having resorted to it only when Nanansingh failed to comply with the consent order. For these reasons alone I am of the opinion that the private proceedings do not amount to an effective means of redress. Looking at the facts from another angle however it is clear that, despite the fact that the ultimate goal of the Applicant in both proceedings is the same, the proceedings seek different things and address different issues in law. In the civil action the actions of Nanansingh were being challenged. In the instant proceedings the challenge is to the decision of the Minister pursuant to his powers under the Act. Here the issue is the procedural propriety of the Minister s decision particularly in the light of the consent order. There is no other procedure for the Applicant to Page 7 of 13
8 challenge such a decision. To my mind of additional significance to the exercise of my discretion is the public interest in the subject matter of these proceedings: the exercise of the Minister s discretion under the Act in the light of what is in effect a valid court order reflecting on the legality of the subject matter of the permission. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that there is no other means of redress conveniently or effectively available to the Applicant. Further, even if the pursuit of enforcement proceedings pursuant to the consent order was a suitable alternative remedy, I am satisfied that given the public interest in this issue this is a case in which I ought to exercise my discretion to allow the Applicant to pursue the proceedings before me. Delay Section 11 of the JR Act provides that an application for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within three months of the date when the grounds for the application first arose, unless the court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. The section further provides that the court may refuse to grant leave to apply for judicial review if it considers that there has been undue delay in making the application and that the grant of any relief would cause substantial hardship to or substantially prejudice the rights of any person, or would be detrimental to good administration. 5 Insofar as it is relevant to these proceedings Part 56.5 of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 as amended ( the CPR ) mirrors the requirement that an application for leave must be made 5 Section 11(2) of the JR Act. Page 8 of 13
9 promptly. In this regard the rule provides that leave may be refused in any case where the judge considers there has been unreasonable delay before making the application and states that the general rule is that an application for leave to make a claim for an order of certiorari must be made within three months of the proceedings to which it relates. 6 Similarly the rules provide that in considering whether to refuse leave because of delay the question of substantial hardship or prejudice to the rights of any person and the detriment to good administration must be considered. 7 The effect of these provisions is that an applicant is required to make the application promptly. Although there is no evidence as to precisely when the decision complained of was brought to the attention of the Applicant it is clear that more than three months have passed. Indeed the Applicant admits that these proceedings were filed some two months outside the three-month period stipulated under section 11 of the JR Act. On the facts therefore I am satisfied that the application was made at least two months outside of the three month limit recommended by the JR Act. Although not framed in the manner of a submission there is some suggestion by the Applicant that time taken in an attempt to resolve the dispute, whether by discussion or pre-action protocol letter, provides a good reason for the delay. With respect to the issue of a pre-action letter however the practice direction establishing the protocol specifically provides that this shall not affect the time limits with respect to judicial review proceedings 8. In any event it is clear that these attempts to resolve did not prevent the Applicant from making her first application for 6 Part 56.5 (1)and (2) of the CPR 7 Part 56.5(3) of the CPR 8 Practice direction CPR Appendix D 1.7 Page 9 of 13
10 leave within the three month period. The Applicant s present difficulty arises as a direct result of the failure of her Attorneys to comply with the order of the court and the delay which arose thereafter. It is not in dispute however that there resides in the court a discretion to extend the period within which the application can be made if there is good reason to do so. The Minister submits that I ought not to exercise my discretion in this regard, because (a) the Applicant has not adduced any reasonable explanation for the delay and (b) in any event the reasons that are provided result in substantial prejudice to a third-party and detriment to good administration. In this latter regard I take the submission of the Minister to mean that the delay itself results in prejudice to a thirdparty and that to grant leave at this stage is detrimental to good administration. I accept the Minister s submission that no reasonable explanation has been provided for the delay. In this regard the Applicant's reference to the inadvertence of counsel, while providing an explanation, such an explanation cannot be considered reasonable in my view. Not only was the condition that the application be filed within 14 days contained in a written order of the court but such a condition is mandated by the rules. 9 With respect to the prejudice to the interest of a third-party the Minister submits that the decision affects Nanansingh. Understandably given Nanansingh s role in the whole matter no submissions have been made on exactly how the delay would have prejudiced Nanansingh. On the facts before me I am not convinced that there is any prejudice to Nanansingh by the grant of leave at this stage, he already having to grapple with the fact of his consent order. 9 Part 56.4(11) of the CPR. Page 10 of 13
11 With respect to the detriment to good administration the Minister submits that it would be at variance with the efficient administration if, on an application of an applicant, the rights of a third party can be held in limbo while through inadvertence of counsel the matter is left to flounder on the Claimant s interpretation of the Minister s action. In this regard the Minister relies on this statement of Lord Goff in Reg v Dairy Tribunal, Ex p Caswell (H.L(E)) 10 : In asking the question whether the grant of such relief would be detrimental to good administration, the court is at that stage looking at the interest in good administration independently of matters such as these. In the present context, that interest lies essentially in a regular flow of consistent decisions, made and published with reasonable dispatch; in citizens knowing where they stand, and how they can order their affairs in the light of the relevant decision. I accept the statement as being an accurate statement of the law. On the facts before me, however, it is clear that this application is based on the fact of inconsistent decisions by the Minister with respect to the development of the land by Nanansingh and the apparent refusal of the Minister to consider the court order in this regard. In these circumstances it would seem to me that good administration requires that these conflicts be resolved by explanation or otherwise. I am satisfied therefore that it has not been demonstrated that the grant of leave would be likely to prejudice any third-party or be detrimental to good administration AC G to H Page 11 of 13
12 In this jurisdiction the very issues raised by the Minister were dealt with in the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Abzal Mohammed v The Police Service Commission 11. The issue for determination in the Court of Appeal was whether the first instance judge erred in not extending the time for the application for permission. With respect to the legislative scheme the Court was of the opinion that on a correct interpretation of section 11 of the JR Act it is only if there is both undue delay and prejudice or detriment that the court may refuse to grant leave. Similarly with respect to Part 56.5(3) of the CPR they were of the opinion that: The rule demonstrates the delay alone is not the deciding factor on whether to refuse leave. 12 As in this case the Court of Appeal in the Abzal Mohammed case was of the opinion that the only hurdle left for the appellant to jump was whether he could show that there is good reason for the court to extend the period for making the application under section 11(1). 13 In this regard Kangaloo JA was of the opinion that: It was sufficient to say that among the factors to be taken into account are (a) length of delay; (b) reason for delay;(c) prospect of success;(d) degree of prejudice;(e) overriding principle that justice is to be done and (f) importance of the issues involved in the challenge. This list he opined was not exhaustive. I am satisfied that the issue for my determination is an important one the resolution of which is in the public interest. While the length of the delay in the instant case is in excess of the 20 day delay in Abzal Mohammed and reasons provided are by no means acceptable it is clear that, as in Abzal Mohammed, it cannot be said that the Applicant slept on her rights. The Applicant seeks to challenge the decision on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness. At this stage and in 11 Civ App No 53 of Per Kangaloo JA at paragraphs 21 and 22, pages 7 and Per Kangaloo JA at paragraph 24 pages 8-9. Page 12 of 13
13 the absence of any reasons provided by the Minister it is fair to say that there is a reasonable chance of success. I am satisfied that there is no prejudice to either the Minister or third parties. It would seem to me that in the circumstances as presented justice requires that the time to bring the application be extended and leave be given to the Applicant to seek judicial review of the decision of the Minister as reflected in the letter of the 5 th June Dated this 12 th day of February, Judith Jones Judge Page 13 of 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2013-04233 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. Between. And. HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between ALVIN And AHYEW Claimant HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DEVANT MAHARAJ AND NATIONAL ENERGY CORPORATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2011 Claim No. CV2010-00242 BETWEEN DEVANT MAHARAJ APPELLANT AND NATIONAL ENERGY CORPORATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENT
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2012-00772 BETWEEN KELVIN DOOLARIE AND FIELD 1 st Claimant RAMCHARAN 2 nd Claimant PROBHADAI SOOKDEO BISSESSAR 1 st Defendant RAMCHARAN 2
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2017-02046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO RAPHAEL MOHAMMED AND THE COMMISSIONER OF PRISONS CLAIMANT FIRST DEFENDANT AND THE ATTORNEY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN KENNY GOPAUL AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Leads Ms Allison Douglas Instructed by Ms. Kerry Ann Oliverie
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2012-04089 BETWEEN KENNY GOPAUL CLAIMANT AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MOHANLAL RAMCHARAN AND CARLYLE AMBROSE SERRANO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-02646 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MOHANLAL RAMCHARAN AND Claimant CARLYLE AMBROSE SERRANO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JUDITH JONES Appearances:
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 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 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 BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE C.V. 2011/2027 BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS APPLICANTS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE
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 COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2011 BETWEEN THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant AND ABZAL MOHAMMED Respondent PANEL: N. Bereaux, J.A. G. Smith, J.A.
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 AND. (POLICE CONSTABLE) EDGAR BAIRD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE NO. CV 2009-00642 BETWEEN OTIS JOBE Claimant AND (POLICE CONSTABLE) EDGAR BAIRD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants BEFORE
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SEUKERAN SINGH CLAIMANT AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-04470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SEUKERAN SINGH CLAIMANT AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2009-01937 BETWEEN PETER LEWIS CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice A. des
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-02188 BETWEEN DEOLAL GANGADEEN Claimant AND HAROON HOSEIN Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PHILLIP QUASHIE CLAIMANT AND THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PROPOSED DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2009-02981 BETWEEN PHILLIP QUASHIE CLAIMANT AND THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PROPOSED DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances:
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 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 SOCA FOR PEACE FOUNDATION AND THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2013-01845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SOCA FOR PEACE FOUNDATION APPLICANT AND THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE RESPONDENT Before the Honourable
More informationIn the High Court of Justice. Between. Devant Maharaj. And. The Ministry of Local Government
Trinidad and Tobago In the High Court of Justice Claim No. CV 2008-04746 Between Devant Maharaj Applicant And The Ministry of Local Government Respondent Before The Honourable Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND MAHADEO MAHARAJ AND GUARDIAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REASONS
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA S 2048 of 2004 BETWEEN ROSEANN MAHABAL Plaintiff AND MAHADEO MAHARAJ AND First Defendant GUARDIAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Second
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 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 Sub-Registry, San Fernando. VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND. SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership)
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando CV. NO. 2006-01349 BETWEEN VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership) Defendant BEFORE
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 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 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 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. Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT & SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED. And EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2017-02302 Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT & SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED Claimant And EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED First Defendant
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 information-and- SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT NIMBY Appellant -and- THE COUNCIL Respondent INTRODUCTION SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing Nimby
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 informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA KERRY WERTH CHARMAINE WERTH AND GL VNIS RICHARDSON
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO. ANUHCV 2013/0150 BETWEEN: KERRY WERTH CHARMAINE WERTH Claimants AND GL VNIS RICHARDSON DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
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 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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2014-00133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND ANAND SINGH Defendant AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. By way of her Lawful Attorney Kenneth Antoine. And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2013-04883 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between SYBIL CHIN SLICK By way of her Lawful Attorney Kenneth Antoine Claimant GAIL HICKS And Defendant Before the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY- SAN FERNANDO AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY- SAN FERNANDO Claim No: CV2016-01485 VIJAY SINGH Applicant/Intended Claimant AND THE OMBUDSMAN Respondent/Intended Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2007/02055 BETWEEN THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CLAIMANT AND THE NATIONAL INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2015-03190 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RAJAEE ALI (A PERSON INCARCERATED AT THE PORT OF SPAIN PRISON) FOR AN ADMINISTARTIVE
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 AND THE MINISTEROF LABOUR AND SMALL AND MICRO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2006-03499 BETWEEN NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED APPLICANT AND THE MINISTEROF LABOUR AND SMALL AND MICRO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
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 informationNare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at North Shields On 6 May 2011 Determination Promulgated
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2009 BETWEEN ANTONIO WEBSTER APPELLANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENT Civil Appeal No. 120 of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando BETWEEN. KALAWATIE GODEK also referred to as Jenny Godek
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2017-00494 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando BETWEEN KALAWATIE GODEK also referred to as Jenny Godek CLAIMANT AND THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER (HEAD OF THE 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 COURT OF APPEAL
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2008-01078 C.A. No. 126 of 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN LATCHMAN RAMOUTAR C.L. SINGH TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD. Appellants AND LENORE DUNCAN (in her
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 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 (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN AND. Ms. D. Christopher-Noel; Mr. R. Singh and Ms. G. Jackman instructed by Ms. F.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV. No.2009-02631 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN VERNON AND REID Claimant HER WORSHIP THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE JOAN GILL Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
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 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 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 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 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 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN MAY JOSEPHINE HUMPHREY AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2011 BETWEEN MAY JOSEPHINE HUMPHREY Appellant AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO NATIONAL PETROLEUM MARKETING COMPANY LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RODNEY KHADAROO AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: CV2011-04757 BETWEEN RODNEY KHADAROO AND CLAIMANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Madam
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. 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 BALLIRAM ROOPNARINE. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2007-04461 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BALLIRAM ROOPNARINE Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before Hon. Madame Justice C. Pemberton
More informationJUDGMENT. Gopichand Ganga and others (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police/Police Service Commission (Respondent)
[2011] UKPC 28 Privy Council Appeal No 0046 of 2010 JUDGMENT Gopichand Ganga and others (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police/Police Service Commission (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic
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 informationIN 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 DEOCHAN SAMPATH AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2012-01734 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DEOCHAN SAMPATH Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO First Defendant TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO P.C. SAMAD P.C. PIERRE THIRD DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: CV2007-04365 BETWEEN NIGEL APARBALL ROHIT APARBALL NEIL APARBALL BATCHYA APARBALL CLAIMANTS And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND
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 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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between FIDEL RAMPERSAD RAJ KAMAL REDDY AVUTHU RYAN RICHARDSON VISHAM BHIMULL SHAUN LYNCH AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No: CV 2014 01330 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between FIDEL RAMPERSAD RAJ KAMAL REDDY AVUTHU RYAN RICHARDSON VISHAM BHIMULL SHAUN LYNCH AND Claimants MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
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. 2015
CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03821 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JOHN HORSHAM Claimant AND ROOPNARINE S LINEN CLOSET AND INTERIOR ACCENTS LIMITED Trading as ROOPNARINE S LINEN CLOSET
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF THE PARTITION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 27 NO. 14 AND. RAWTI also called RAWTI ROOPNARINE KUMAR ROOPNARINE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 52 of 2012 BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF THE PARTITION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 27 NO. 14 AND In The matter of All and Singular that certain
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 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 informationINFORMATION SHEET C2 W
25a Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames RG9 2BA tel: 01491 573535 e-mail: hq@oss.org.uk website: www.oss.org.uk (registered in England and Wales, limited company number 7846516, registered charity number 1144840)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN GORDON WINTER COMPANY LIMITED AND THE NATIONAL GAS COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2012/1981 BETWEEN GORDON WINTER COMPANY LIMITED CLAIMANT AND THE NATIONAL GAS COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM
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 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 MATTER OF MAGISTERIAL SUIT NO. 66 OF 2008 AND IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT 2000 PART 56.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 320 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF MAGISTERIAL SUIT NO. 66 OF 2008 AND IN THE EASTERN
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL ROY FELIX. And. DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CA No. S 256/2017 Between ROY FELIX And DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO Claimant Defendant PANEL: BEREAUX J.A. NARINE J.A. RAJKUMAR J.A. APPEARANCES:
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 informationORAL JUDGEMENT BETWEEN RASHAKA BROOKS JNR. CLAIMANT (A MINOR) BY RASHAKA BROOKS SNR.
ORAL JUDGEMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CLAIM NO 2012 HCV 03504 BETWEEN RASHAKA BROOKS JNR. CLAIMANT (A MINOR) BY RASHAKA BROOKS SNR. (HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND) AND THE ATTORNEY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. (Sub-Registry, Tobago) BETWEEN JENNY LIND THOMPSON AND THE TOBAGO HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY AND THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry, Tobago) CLAIM NO. Cv 2007-04744 JENNY LIND THOMPSON BETWEEN Claimant AND THE TOBAGO HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1 st Defendant AND THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between RASHEED ALI OF ALI S POULTRY AND MEAT SUPPLIES. And NEIL RABINDRANATH SEEPERSAD. And *******************
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2013-01618 Between RASHEED ALI OF ALI S POULTRY AND MEAT SUPPLIES Claimant And NEIL RABINDRANATH SEEPERSAD First Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN RBC FINANCIAL (CARIBBEAN) LIMITED AND THE REGISTRATION, RECOGNITION AND CERTIFICATION BOARD
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2017-00827 BETWEEN RBC FINANCIAL (CARIBBEAN) LIMITED Claimant AND THE REGISTRATION, RECOGNITION AND CERTIFICATION BOARD Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.: CV2008-03639 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 And IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STEVE FERGUSON AND ISHWAR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN REAL TIME SYSTEMS LIMITED APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2011 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN REAL TIME SYSTEMS LIMITED APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND RENRAW INVESTMENTS LIMITED, CCAM AND COMPANY LIMITED, AND AUSTIN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SANJEEV RAMGARIB AND HER WORSHIP MAGISTRATE REHANNA HOSEIN
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2015 00266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SANJEEV RAMGARIB Applicant AND HER WORSHIP MAGISTRATE REHANNA HOSEIN Respondent Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie
More informationEASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ANGUILLA AXAHCVAP2013/0010 In the Matter of the Companies Act (c. C65) In the Matter of Leeward Isles Resorts Limited (In Liquidation) BETWEEN: [1]
More informationGalliford Try Construction Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 03/14
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Coulson : TCC. 14 th March 2008 Introduction 1. This is an application by the Defendant for an order that paragraphs 39 to 48 inclusive of the witness statement of Mr Joseph Martin,
More information