IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
|
|
- Richard McDonald
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CA No. 34 of 2013 CV No of 2011 PANEL: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND Appellants FIRST CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LTD) Respondent P. Moosai, J.A. M. Mohammed, J.A. J. Jones, J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr. V. Maharaj for the Appellants. Mr. I. Benjamin instructed by Mr. R. Thomas for the Respondent. Date delivered: 14 th January, I have read the Reasons of Jones J.A. and I agree with it. P. Moosai Justice of Appeal I too, agree. M. Mohammed Justice of Appeal Page 1 of 14
2 REASONS Delivered by: J. Jones, J.A. 1. On 25 th September 2015 we dismissed this appeal and indicated that we would provide our written reasons at a later date. We do so now. In this appeal we have not had the benefit of the Judge s reasons. This failure does not however preclude this court from considering and determining the appeal Pursuant to an application by the Respondent, the claimant in the proceedings below, on the 7 th January 2013 the trial judge struck out the Appellants defences and entered judgment for the Respondent on its statement of case. By a notice of appeal dated 19 th February 2013 the Appellants appealed this decision. 3. By a claim filed on 27 th September 2011 the Respondent sought from the Appellants the payment of money under four contracts of guarantee, all in the same terms, dated 19 th April The Respondent sought the payment by each of the Appellants of the sum of $11,700, but collectively not more than $16,404, in accordance with the terms of the contracts. 4. The allegations of fact in the statement of case were that: (i) the Appellants had all entered into contracts of guarantee whereby they agreed to guarantee the repayment of a loan taken by Doc s Homes Ltd. ( the Company ); (ii) there was due and owning from the Company the sum of $11,700, under the loan;(iii) by individual letters dated 25 th May 2010 the Respondent demanded payment from the Appellants; and 1 Romauld James v The Attorney General Civ. App 154 of 2006 Page 2 of 14
3 (iv) by letters dated 16 th and 18 th June 2013 signed by the Third and Fourth Appellants on behalf of the Company the Company acknowledged the debt. 5. The Respondent also pleaded its reliance on clause 9 of the contract which provided that any admission or acknowledgement in writing by the Company, or any person acting on its behalf, of the amount of the indebtedness of the Company was binding and conclusive on each guarantor. Copies of the documents referred to by the Respondents were all annexed to the statement of case. 6. The Appellants defences, all in similar terms, did not deny entering into the contracts of guarantee. Neither did they, in accordance with Part 10.5 of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 as amended ( the CPR ), deny that there was a demand for payment of the sums due by the Respondent on 25 th May 2010 nor that the Company had acknowledged the debt. 7. Each defence however: (i) contended that the claim was barred by virtue of section 3 of the Limitation of Certain Actions Act 2 ; (ii) denied the interpretation placed on clause 9 of the contracts by the Respondent and sought to rely on the express terms of the clause for its full term true meaning and effect. and (iii) claimed ignorance of the monies advanced or the Company s indebtedness under the loan and put the Respondent to the proof. 8. By its reply the Respondent treated with the limitation point. It relied on clause 1 of the contract of guarantee by which the Appellants undertook to pay the sums due and 2 Chap 7:09 Page 3 of 14
4 owing to the Respondent upon demand in writing; referred to the demand made by way of the letter dated 25 th May 2010 and averred that the letter of 16 th June was an acknowledgement in writing to the debt in the context of sections 12 and 13 of the Limitation of Certain Actions Act. 9. The application to strike out the defences was pursuant to Part 26.2 of the CPR and on the basis that they disclosed no grounds for defending the claim and/or were an abuse of the process of the court. The grounds of the application however treated only with the limitation point. As it was entitled to do the Respondent filed an affidavit in support of its application. 10. In addition to the facts alleged and the documents attached to their statement of case the affidavit disclosed that a judgment had been obtained by the Respondent against the Company on 14 th February 2012, in the sum of $16,407, together with interest at the rate of $5, per day from 4 th December 2010 to 14 th February 2014, which judgment had not been satisfied. The Appellants filed no affidavit in opposition to that filed by the Respondent. Pursuant to this application the judge struck out the Appellants defences and granted the Respondent the relief sought in the claim. 11. Apart from the substantive appeal also before us at the hearing was an application filed by the Respondent by which it sought to strike out the notice of appeal for failing to comply with Parts 64.5(a) and 64.6(1)(a) of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 as amended ( the CPR ). I propose to deal first with the merits of the appeal. Page 4 of 14
5 The merits of the appeal 12. As pleaded the issues in the case were: 1. was the claim barred by section 3 of the Limitation of Certain Actions Act? 2. Did clause 9 of the contract of guarantee make the acknowledgement contained in the letter of the 16 th June binding on the Appellants; and 3. If not, was the sum claimed due and owing? 13. Issues (ii) and (iii) specifically dealt with the proof of the Respondent s case. If clause 9 was to be interpreted as the Respondent contended then there was no need for further proof that the sums were due and owing. If it was not to be interpreted in that manner then the Respondent would need to prove that the sums were due from the Appellants. 14. With respect to these two issues the judgment obtained against the Company, and disclosed in the affidavit in support of the application, rendered otiose the Appellants arguments on the effect of clause 9 of the contracts of guarantee and any dispute as to the sum due and owing by them to the Respondent. On the application before the trial judge therefore the only live issue was the limitation point. That this was the position is borne out by the submissions filed by both parties on the application. These submissions treat solely with the limitation point. 15. By their written submissions before us the Appellants proceeded on three bases: (i) clause 9 did not establish the indebtedness of the Appellants under the contract; (ii) the Respondent had not established that the claim was brought within the limitation period and (iii) the claim was for a money judgment which the Appellants had not Page 5 of 14
6 admitted and, as a result, the Respondent was required to prove same. The Appellants have failed on each of the basis relied upon. 16. The fact is that before the judge the Appellants never challenged the existence of the judgment against the Company nor the Respondent s assertion that the judgment was unsatisfied. An unsatisfied judgment against the Company on the loan for a sum in excess of that claimed against the Appellants was sufficient to deal with submissions (i) and (iii). There was clear evidence before the judge of the existence and quantum of the Company s indebtedness and, consequently, Appellants indebtedness under the contracts of guarantee. 17. On the limitation point by clause 1 of the contracts of guarantee the Appellants undertook to pay all sums due or owing by the Company on demand in writing made on them by the Respondent. In accordance with the terms of their contract therefore time began to run from the date of the demand. There has been no denial, in accordance with part 10.5 of the CPR, by the Appellants of the receipt of the letter of 25 th May 2010 making the demand nor that the letter constituted a demand. 18. In any event to constitute a demand in law all that is required is a clear and unconditional intimation that payment is required. 3 The letter was such a clear and unconditional intimation. The action was commenced in September 2011 well within the four-year period set by the Limitation of Certain Actions Act for bringing the action 4. In these circumstances therefore the limitation point also failed. Consequently there was no merit in the appeal. 3 Financial Institutions Ltd v Negril Holdings Ltd and Another [2004]65WIR 227 at paragraph section 3 of the Act Page 6 of 14
7 Is this a procedural appeal 19. The notice of application filed by the Appellants herein treats with the troubling question of what is a procedural appeal. Part 64.5(a) requires a procedural appeal to be filed within 7 days of the date of the decision appealed against. The notice of appeal in this case was filed on 19 February 2013 just within the 42 day period fixed for the filing of regular appeals 5 but outside the 7 day period required for the filing of procedural appeals. 20. Part 64.6(1)(a) further requires that the notice of appeal must be served forthwith on all the parties to the proceedings. The notice of appeal was served on the Respondent on the 22 nd April 2013 two months after it was filed. By the rules a procedural appeal is required to be heard within 28 days of its filing. In these circumstances therefore if the appeal is properly a procedural appeal then the service of the notice of appeal some two months after filing would not comply with the requirement that it be served forthwith. If the appeal is not a procedural appeal then, although strictly speaking the notice of appeal was not served forthwith, no harm has been alleged by the Respondent and such a lapse is of no moment. The question therefore is whether this is a procedural appeal. 21. In answering this question little or no assistance can be obtained from the distinctions under the earlier rules with respect to final and interlocutory appeals. Under the 1975 rules an appeal from an interlocutory order or a judgment or order made pursuant to orders 14 and 83 6, had to be filed within 14 days. All other appeals were given 6 weeks for the filing of the notice of appeal. The test for ascertaining whether a 5 Part 64.5(b) 6 orders providing for summary judgment Page 7 of 14
8 decision was interlocutory or final was whether the order finally determined the rights of the parties. If it finally determined the rights of the parties then it was a final order. 22. The 1975 rules specifically lumped applications for summary judgments with interlocutory orders or judgments. So that, despite the fact that under the applicable test orders and judgments made pursuant to orders 14 and 83 would have qualified as final orders, the rules specifically required such orders or judgments to be treated as appeals from interlocutory orders for the purpose of the time to appeal. The CPR does not treat summary judgments in that manner. 23. The distinction drawn by the CPR is between regular appeals and procedural appeals. The CPR defines a procedural appeal as an appeal from a decision of a master or judge which does not directly decide the substantive issues in a claim and excludes- (a) any such decision made during the course of the trial or final hearing of the proceedings; (b) an order granting any relief made at an application for judicial review (including an application for leave to make the application) or under section 14(1) of the Constitution under part 56; and (c) the following orders under Part 17: i. an interim injunction or declarations; ii. a freezing injunction; iii. an order to deliver up goods; and iv. any order made before proceedings are commenced or against a non-party; and Page 8 of 14
9 (d) an order for committal or confiscation of assets under Part The general rule therefore is that an appeal from a decision that does not directly decide the substantive issues in the case is a procedural appeal but if that decision is made in any of the proceedings identified at (a) to (d) above then it cannot be the subject of a procedural appeal. So that, for example, an order granting relief in an application for judicial review or a decision made during the course of a trial even though it does not directly decide the substantive issues of the case cannot be the subject of a procedural appeal. The cases under the old rules that address the difference between interlocutory and final orders therefore do not assist in the determination of what is a procedural appeal. 25. Under the CPR the determinate factor is not that the decision may have finally decided the dispute between the parties but rather whether the decision directly deals with the substantive issues in the claim. Of note here are the use of the words directly and substantive in the rule. Such a determination requires an examination of the issues in the claim and the decision of the judge or master. 26. Of course in the majority of cases it is relatively easy to determine whether an appeal is procedural or not. The difficulty arises with those decisions that finally determine the action and in particular those decisions that arise out of applications to strike out statements of case, as in the instant case, and from applications for summary judgment 8. In those cases, if the appeal is properly a procedural appeal an incorrect categorization may be fatal to the appeal. 7 Part 64.1(2) 8 Part 15 of the rules Page 9 of 14
10 27. The question of whether an appeal was a procedural appeal or not was considered by this court in the case of Allan Dick and Co. v Fast Freight Forwarders Ltd 9. Although this was a case decided on its particular facts the process used by the judge to arrive at the decision of the court is instructive. The appeal was from a decision of a judge refusing to set aside an order made by him on a without notice application joining the Appellant as the second defendant in the claim. One of the questions to be determined was whether the appeal, filed as a procedural appeal, was properly before the court. The issue was complicated by the fact that the order had been made on a date on which the action had been listed for the trial between the claimant and the original defendant. 28. In treating with the problem Mendonca JA posed two questions: (i) does the decision appealed directly decide the substantive issues in the claim; and (ii) if it did not was it made during the course of the trial or final hearing. In answering the first question Mendonca JA considered what would have been the issues in the trial between the new defendant and the claimant. He determined one of the substantive issues to be whether the corporate veil may be pierced and concluded that since the order that the appellant be joined as a party did not directly determine that issue then the first question was answered in the negative. The appeal was not therefore from an order that directly decided the substantive issues in the case. 29. With respect to the second question, on the particular facts of the case, Mendonca JA found that it was not an order made during the course of the trial between the claimant and the new defendant. In the circumstances he concluded that the appeal was a procedural appeal. 9 Civil Appeal No 214 of 2010 Page 10 of 14
11 30. The first question posed by Mendonca JA treated with the general rule while the second question was necessary to determine whether any of the exclusions applied. Mendonca JA could as easily have posed the questions in this way: (i) does the decision appealed from directly decide the substantive issues in the claim and (ii) do any of the exclusions apply. This is the approach to be taken. 31. On the facts in the instant case the exclusions do not apply. The answer to question (ii)therefore is no. The real question to be answered here is whether the judge in arriving at his decision to strike out the defences and enter judgment for the Respondent directly decided the substantive issues in the claim. If he did then the procedure adopted by the Appellant is correct. The appeal is not a procedural appeal. If he did not then the appeal is a procedural appeal and this appeal was not properly before us. 32. While the lack of reasons given by the judge would not affect a determination of what were the substantial issues in the case it does to some extent hamper a determination of what was directly decided by the judge. As we have seen while there were three issues there were in fact only two substantive issues in the case: the limitation point and whether the sum claimed was due and owing. In the absence of reasons therefore to determine what was directly decided by the judge greater reliance must be placed on the application before the court and the submissions in this regard. 33. The application before the judge was made pursuant to Part Part 26 establishes the court s case management powers. These powers include the power under Part 26.2 to strike out a statement of case or part of a statement of case if it appears to the court that: Page 11 of 14
12 (a) there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order or direction of a court in the proceedings; (b) it is an abuse of the court; (c) it discloses no grounds for bringing or defending a claim; or (d) it is prolix or does not comply with the requirements of Parts 8 or Under the CPR the phrase statement of case includes a claim, defence, counterclaim, ancilliary claim, defence to counterclaim and a reply to a defence. 10 These are all documents that, prior to these rules, were generically referred to as pleadings. For clarity here I will continue with the use of the word pleadings or pleading when appropriate. 35. Part 26.2 therefore allows a court to strike out a pleading for any of the four reasons identified in the rule. While a decision under (a) or (d) may decide the action, in the sense of concluding it, generally such a decision will not directly decide the substantive issues in the claim. They treat more with the procedure followed rather than the substance of the claim. In those circumstances an appeal from such a decision will generally be a procedural appeal. 36. Decisions under (b) and (c) are not always so clear-cut. Decisions under those grounds can, but may not always, directly deal with the substantive issues in the case. So for example an action for damages for breach of contract or based on a tort may be determined upon an application made under either (b) or (c) on the ground that the cause of action is statute-barred. A decision in these circumstances will not have 10 Part 2 Page 12 of 14
13 treated with the substantive issues in the case directly or at all but rather proceeds on the basis that too much time has passed for the court to examine such a claim. Or the application may be brought under (b) or (c) but in fact on further examination the application is really based on the failure of the defendant to comply with Part 10 resulting in the defence disclosing no ground for defending the claim. Again here there may be no direct determination by the judge or master of the substantive issues. 37. On the other hand an application under (c) may deal treat with every issue of law and fact raised by the other side and in those circumstances does deal with the substantive issues. In the cases which are not clear-cut therefore, in order to determine whether an appeal from the decision of the judge is or is not a procedural appeal, there needs to be an examination of the issues in the case; the decision of the judge and, particularly in circumstances such as this where there are no reasons, the nature of the application, the grounds upon which the application is based, the evidence adduced and the submissions made. The mere fact that an appeal is from an application made pursuant to Part 26.2 of the CPR is not determinative of the procedure to be followed on appeal. 38. In the instant case, while the grounds for the application and the submissions treated solely with the limitation point, it is clear that the evidence adduced dealt with the other substantial issue in the case, that is, whether the sum claimed was due and owing. In the absence of reasons the only inference to be drawn is that in coming to his decision the judge took into consideration all the evidence adduced. In these circumstances therefore it must be presumed that, in awarding judgment to the Page 13 of 14
14 Claimant, the judge directly dealt with the substantive issues in the case. The appeal therefore is not a procedural appeal. 39. In the circumstances the appeal was dismissed on its merits. J. Jones Justice of Appeal Page 14 of 14
IN 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 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 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. 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 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 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
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 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 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 STEPHEN LORENZO LODAI. And NAGICO INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. (formerly known as GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED)
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2014-01715 Between STEPHEN LORENZO LODAI Claimant And NAGICO INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as GTM INSURANCE COMPANY
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 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 informationIN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN FIRST NATIONAL CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2011 BETWEEN FIRST NATIONAL CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Appellant AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
More informationDr. Nael Bunni, Chairman, Dispute Resolution Panel, Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. December 2000.
Preamble This Arbitration Procedure has been prepared by Engineers Ireland principally for use with the Engineers Ireland Conditions of Contract for arbitrations conducted under the Arbitration Acts 1954
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 1) RAIN FOREST RESORTS LIMITED. THE NATIONAL GAS COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Civil Appeal No. P186 of 2016 Civil Appeal No. P190 of 2016 CV No. 04374 of 2015 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN 1) RAIN FOREST RESORTS LIMITED 2) SUPER INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
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 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 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 informationJUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV BETWEEN D. C. DEVELOPERS LIMITED. Claimant AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2006-02313 BETWEEN D. C. DEVELOPERS LIMITED AND Claimant MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS LIMITED Defendant Before The Honourable Mr.
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHCV 2005/0497 BETWEEN: FIRST CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (BARBADOS) LIMITED (formerly CIBC Caribbean Limited)
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. 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 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 BETWEEN. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MORTGAGE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Claimant AND STEPHEN ROBERTS
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2010-00448/HCA S-2360 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MORTGAGE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Claimant AND STEPHEN ROBERTS ELIZABETH ROBERTS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE INTEGRAL PETROLEUM SA AND MELARS GROUP LIMITED EAST-WEST LOGISTICS LLP AND MELARS GROUP LIMITED
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL DIVISION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. BVIHC (COM) 0087 OF 2015 INTEGRAL PETROLEUM SA Claimant/Respondent AND
More informationATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent. Cooper, Venning and Williams JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA522/2013 [2015] NZCA 337 BETWEEN AND ATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Hearing: 18 June 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Venning
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 informationDEFAULT JUDGMENTS: SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS: SETTING ASIDE ISBN 983-3519-05-9 Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover/Extent: 575 pp Publication Price: MYR 200.00 The law is stated as of August 31, 2006 CHAPTER 1 RULES OF COURT
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 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 EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERATION OF ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS ST CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT (CIVIL)
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERATION OF ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS ST CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. SKBCV2007/0171 IN THE MATTER of the Application by AURELIE
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. 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 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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2017-01878 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DEOWATTIE BAKSH Claimant AND SHAIN STEVEN Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Robin N. Mohammed Appearances:
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 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 informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORY OF ANGUILLA (CIVIL) AD 2006 SURFSIDE TRADING LTD. Claimant/Respondent AND
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TERRITORY OF ANGUILLA (CIVIL) AD 2006 CLAIM NO. AXAHCV/2005/0016 BETWEEN: SURFSIDE TRADING LTD. AND LANDSOME GROUP INC. ET AL Claimant/Respondent
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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2016-00756 BETWEEN CANDICE MAHADEO Claimant AND GEISHA MAHADEO NIRMAL MAHADEO Defendants Before the Honourable Madam Justice Margaret
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 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. 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 informationPROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A
PROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A ISBN 983-41166-7-5 Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover/Extent: 650 pp Publication Price: MYR 220.00 The law is stated as of July 1, 2004 Chapter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. Anand Beharrylal AND. Dhanraj Soodeen. Ricky Ramoutar
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011-04453 BETWEEN Anand Beharrylal AND Claimant Dhanraj Soodeen Ricky Ramoutar First Defendant Second Defendant Before the Honourable
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 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 ROMATI MARAJ CLAIMANT AND ASHAN ALI TIMMY ASHMIR ALI DEFENDANTS
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-00686 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN ROMATI MARAJ CLAIMANT AND ASHAN ALI TIMMY ASHMIR ALI DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND MERLIN HARROO AND. LELTUS MANNETTE (wrongly sued as KELTIIS MANNETTE) AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2010-02607 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN KELLY BOYER-HURDLE Claimant AND MERLIN HARROO AND LELTUS MANNETTE (wrongly sued as KELTIIS MANNETTE) AND First Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN YVONNE ROSE MARICHEAU. And MAUREEN BHARAT PEREIRA. And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2013-01568 BETWEEN YVONNE ROSE MARICHEAU And Claimant MAUREEN BHARAT PEREIRA And First Defendant RICARDO PEREIRA Second Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED Defendant JUDGMENT
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2012-00541 BETWEEN NICON & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Claimant AND NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationADGM COURTS PRACTICE DIRECTION 3
ADGM COURTS PRACTICE DIRECTION 3 SMALL CLAIMS PRACTICE DIRECTION 3 SMALL CLAIMS Table of Contents A. SMALL CLAIMS... 1 Definition... 1 Making a claim [r.27]... 1 Rule 30 Procedure [r.30]... 2 Service out
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. LAING SANDBLASTING & PAINTING CO. LTD. Claimant AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2012-00691 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LAING SANDBLASTING & PAINTING CO. LTD. Claimant AND DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS LTD Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE
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 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 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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV# 2009-01502 BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TILKEY GOBIN ALSO CALLED TILKIE GOBIN DECEASED HERAWATI CHARLES CLAIMANT And (1) MONICA JANKEY MADHOSINGH (as Executrix
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 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 KKRV CONSOLIDATED MARINE SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-02899 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN KKRV CONSOLIDATED MARINE SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT BEFORE THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. P029 of 2016 BETWEEN CRISTAL ROBERTS First Claimant ISAIAH JABARI EMMANUEL ROBERTS (BY HIS NEXT OF KIN AND NEXT FRIEND RONALD
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 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2009-01581 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE FOR LEAVE
More informationBahamas Litigation Guide IBA Litigation Committee
The Process of a Typical Commercial Case Bahamas Litigation Guide IBA Litigation Committee Mrs. Tara A.A. Archer tarcher@higgsjohnson.com Mr. Audley D. Hanna Jr. ahanna@higgsjohnson.com Higgs & Johnson
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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between FIRST CITIZENS BANK LIMITED. And JENNIFER DANIELS
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2013-00136 Between FIRST CITIZENS BANK LIMITED And JENNIFER DANIELS Claimant First Defendant And BRANDON RAMDEEN also called BRANDON TREVOR
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 informationDUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY Introductory Provisions. Article (1) Definitions
DUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY 2011 Introductory Provisions Article (1) Definitions 1.1 The following words and phrases shall have the meaning assigned thereto unless
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, CHAP. 4:01 RULES
Legal Notice No. REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, CHAP. 4:01 RULES Made by the Rules Committee under section 78 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and subject to
More informationTHE LMAA TERMS (2006)
THE LONDON MARITIME ARBITRATORS ASSOCIATION THE LMAA TERMS (2006) Effective for appointments on and after 1st January 2006 THE LMAA TERMS (2006) PRELIMINARY 1. These Terms may be referred to as the LMAA
More informationADGM COURTS PRACTICE DIRECTION 3
ADGM COURTS PRACTICE DIRECTION 3 SMALL CLAIMS PRACTICE DIRECTION 3 SMALL CLAIMS Table of Contents A. SMALL CLAIMS... 1 Definition... 1 Making a claim [r.27]... 1 Rule 30 Procedure [r.30]... 2 Service out
More information2. On the 23 rd day of November 2001, the claimant obtained judgment in default of appearance against E. Payments Solutions Ltd.
ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ST. CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. SKBHCV 2003/0170 BETWEEN PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED CLAIMANT and THE ATTRONEY GENERAL DEFENDANT Appearances:
More informationPRE-ACTION CONDUCT PRACTICE DIRECTION
PRACTICE DIRECTION PRE-ACTION CONDUCT PRACTICE DIRECTION PRE-ACTION CONDUCT SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1. AIMS 1.1 The aims of this Practice Direction are to (1) enable parties to settle the issue between
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 informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
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
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 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
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 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 informationCivil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number:
1 Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 883833 QUESTION 1: M issues summons against N for damages as a result of breach
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CPL (Ag) STEVE DAHARI (Regimental No )
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV 2014-04430 BETWEEN CPL (Ag) STEVE DAHARI (Regimental No. 13041) Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO First
More informationTHE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ARBITRATION ACT (CHAPTER 10)
THE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ARBITRATION ACT (CHAPTER 10) (Original Enactment: Act 37 of 2001) REVISED EDITION 2002 (31st July 2002) Prepared and Published by THE LAW REVISION COMMISSION UNDER
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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-00349 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND CHAN PERSAD DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For the Claimant:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO SELWIN RILEY. And. WINSTON CUFFIE (Trading as Forsis) ***********************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-04837 SELWIN RILEY And WINSTON CUFFIE (Trading as Forsis) CLAIMANT DEFENDANT *********************** Before Master Patricia Sobion Awai Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV 2015-02046 BETWEEN NATALIE CHIN WING Claimant AND MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
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 informationGuideline to paragraph 13.1 of the Terms of Reference
Guideline to paragraph 13.1 of the Terms of Reference 13.1 Debt recovery or other proceedings The guideline to paragraph 13.1 addresses the following issues: a. b. c. Subject to paragraph b), where an
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and. BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ELECTRICITY CORPORATION Respondent
TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/010 BETWEEN: BRYON SMITH Appellant and BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ELECTRICITY CORPORATION Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins The
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN ADRIANA RALPH LEE RALPH AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CIVIL APPEAL No. 98 of 2011 CV 2008-04642 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN ADRIANA RALPH LEE RALPH AND APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS WEATHERSHIELD SYSTEMS CARIBBEAN LIMITED RESPONDENT/
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DAVID DESLAURIERS AND LEONORA DESLAURIERS AND GUARDIAN ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED ***************
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Civ. App. P307 of 2014 Claim No. CV2009-04381 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DAVID DESLAURIERS AND LEONORA DESLAURIERS AND Appellants/ Judgment Debtors GUARDIAN ASSET MANAGEMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND RAMDATH DAVE RAMPERSAD, LIQUIDATOR OF HINDU CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CV 2012-04837 BETWEEN R. A. HOLDINGS LIMITED Claimant AND RAMDATH DAVE RAMPERSAD, LIQUIDATOR OF HINDU CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA (CIVIL)
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA (CIVIL) CLAIM NO: ANUHCV 1997/0115 BETWEEN: LOUISE MARTIN (as widow and executrix of The Estate of Alexis Martin,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2016-03177 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN A MEMORUM OF SECOND MORTGAGE DATED THE 15 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 REGISTERED IN VOLUME
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)
COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL
More information