IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE"

Transcription

1 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV BETWEEN CRISTAL ROBERTS First Claimant ISAIAH JABARI EMMANUEL ROBERTS (by his next of kin and next friend Ronald Roberts) Second Claimant AND DR. SAMANTHA BHAGAN MEDCORP LIMITED First Defendant Second Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim Appearances: Mr. M. Powers QC instructed by Mr. R. Williams for the Claimants. Ms. J. Walker for the First Defendant. Mr. R. Martineau S.C. leading Mr. I. Benjamin instructed by Mr. S. Wong for the Second Defendant.

2 Decision 1. Before the court is the Second Defendant s application dated 27 th June 2014 to amend its Defence. The Application 2. The Second Defendant based its application on the following grounds: a. That on the 13 th March 2102, the court granted permission, inter alia, for the Claimant to file and serve a Re-Amended Claim Form and Statement of Case and for the Defendants to file and serve Amended Defences. b. Although the Claimant did file and serve a Re-amended Statement of Case on 16 th March 2012, owing to the parties consent to mediation, the court vacated, inter alia, the order for the Defendants to file Amended Defences. c. The issue of liability was agreed to by Consent Order dated 21 st January Directions for assessment were given on the 31 st October 2013; however, by consent orders dated 31 st January 2014, 26 th March 2014 and 16 th June 2014, the time in respect of the directions were extended. The first CMC was fixed for 30 th June d. Witness statements of facts were filed, by the Claimants on the 14 th February 2014 and by the Defendants on 16 th May The Second Defendant averred that there is a need to further amend both its Defence and the First Defendant s Defence to narrow the issues on quantum, further that they have not responded to the Claimants Re-Amended Statement of Case filed on 16 th March The Second Defendant also stated that there would be no prejudice should the court grant leave to amend. Page 2 of 17

3 Submissions Second Defendant s Submissions 4. Counsel for the Second Defendant summarized the Second Defendant s position at paragraph 2 of its submissions filed 15 th July 2014 as follows: a. The parties pleadings are not closed and remain unresolved in what is a significant decision for a severely injured Claimant; b. The parties are under a duty to further the overriding objective and assist the court in its case management of the matter and in particular, the court s duty to deal with cases justly; c. The Defendants are entitled to amend their defences as such permission was granted in March 2012 following the Claimant s re-amendment of their pleadings; d. The Claimants only indicated in June 2014 that they changed their position on amending their pleadings and took issue with the Defendants pleadings and evidence; e. The Claimants will not be prejudiced as the Defendant s proposed amendment delineates particulars of its dispute on quantum on the basis of the Claimants case as communicated in their correspondence to the Defendants; 5. According to the Second Defendant, although the court granted permission by order dated 13 th March 2012 to the Claimants to file re-amended pleadings and to the Defendants to file amended defences, this was not done. In the case of the Claimants, the Second Defendant argued that the Claimants filed a re-amended Statement of Case which was not in compliance with the court s initial order of the 13 th March 2012 and while the court did, on the 27 th March 2012, hear the parties on this non-compliance issue, the court deferred its decision and vacated the said order. The Second Defendant contended that the reason the court vacated the order was that the issue of quantum had been split from the issue of liability and the pleadings issue related to quantum and the parties had indicated an intention to mediate. Page 3 of 17

4 6. Attorney for the Second Defendant stated that between April and May 2012, the parties discussed and disputed the Claimant s position that there was no proper care in Trinidad and Tobago for the Second Claimant. On 21 st January 2013, liability was settled and quantum proceedings began in October In further correspondence dated 25 th October 2013, the Claimants indicated their intention to seek further amendments to their Statement of Case. Although a CMC was held on the 31 st October 2013, the court did not address the pleadings issue of the Claimants non-compliant re-amended Statement of Case or the Defendants right to file an amended Defence in response. 7. Notwithstanding a further exchange of correspondence between the parties between 28 th November 2013 and 22 January 2014 on the issue of the availability of care for the Second Defendant, on the 13 th June 2014, the Claimant indicated their opposition to the Defendant s pleadings stating that they were entitled to assume that the Defendants would advance no counter case on the availability of treatment in Trinidad and Tobago and on the 17 th June 2014 abandoned their position to seek a further amendment to their pleadings. 8. Counsel for the Second Defendant also noted that although the Claimants witness statements of fact adduced evidence that care for the Second Claimant is inadequate in Trinidad and Tobago the Claimants Statement of Case did not raise this issue. 9. It was therefore submitted on the Second Defendant s behalf that both parties anticipated that evidence would be adduced as to whether services and facilities are available in Trinidad and Tobago to meet the needs of the Second Claimant. It was argued therefore, that the amendment sought would assist the court in indentifying and delineating the issues to the Claimants unpleaded case but communicated in their correspondence and evidence. Accordingly, in keeping with the overriding objective, it was argued that this would assist the court in dealing with the case justly on the basis of legitimate issues: see Bernard v Seebalack [2010] UKPC 15 para 15. Page 4 of 17

5 10. Further, it was submitted that Rule 20.1(3) and (3A) are tools within the CPR for bringing before the court all facts in dispute so that the relevant issues can be determined and managed to resolution and in determining the meaning of good explanation and prompt (Rule 20.1(3)) the court ought to consider Parts 1, 20.1(3A) and 25 of the CPR. Counsel contended that promptitude must be considered contextually: Monza (Trinidad) Limited and Others v PriceWaterhouseCoopers Limited and Others Civ App No 15 of 2011 para 10 and 13; Rampaul v Chavez Industrial Maintenance Limited and Others Civ App No 35 of Counsel submitted that in the circumstances and timeline set out above, the Defendant s application was made both with good reason and promptly. The Second Defendant argued that since the pleadings issues were deferred on 27 th March 2012, the Defendants have not been in a position to amend their Defences until the Claimant s non-compliant re-amended Statement of Case is corrected and refilled. It was also argued that the correspondence between the parties showed that the Claimants case on availability of treatment in Trinidad and Tobago was clearly in dispute. Similarly, that the evidence of all parties reflects the dispute over the availability of treatment in Trinidad and Tobago, inclusive of expert evidence which came at a considerable expense. 11. Counsel concluded that the factors listed in Rule 20.1(3A) do not favour a refusal of the Defendant s application. Specifically, Counsel submitted that: a. The interest of justice favours granting the application so as to ensure the parties be on equal footing and in particular in light of the amount of money involved in the claim. Further to identify precisely the issues having regard to its complexity and the need for future care. b. The application did not become necessary by any failure by the Second Defendant s attorney but rather where as a result of the circumstances of the case. c. The proposed amendments are not inconsistent with the Defence. d. The trial will still proceed as scheduled. e. There is no prejudice to the Claimants if the application is allowed but substantial prejudice to the Defendants if it is refused. Page 5 of 17

6 Claimants Submissions 12. It was contended on the Claimants behalf that the obligation is on both parties to set out the facts upon which it intends to rely. Further, that the Second Defendant s Defence does not indicate any material facts to advance a case for treatment of the Second Defendant in Trinidad and Tobago. It was argued that while the burden is on the Second claimant to prove that expenditure on services is reasonable, if the Second Defendant seeks to advance an alternative basis for the calculation of services or to prove that expenditure is unreasonable, it has to plead it. Thus, an amendment is required by the Second Defendant to advance such a case. Counsel submitted that after considerable delay (three and a half years after filing its Defence and more than 18 months after the Claimants filed their reamended Statement of Case), the application to amend ought to be refused. 13. According to Counsel for the Claimants, the issue of the Second Claimant s treatment abroad was raised in a medical report dated 3 rd April 2007 by Dr. Parag which advised that the Claimant receive treatment in the USA as therapy was limited in Trinidad and Tobago. This report was annexed to the Claimants Statement of Case filed on the 24 th March It was submitted that in breach of Rule 10.8(2) when the Second Defendant filed its Defence on 29 th December 2010, it failed to set out its case, (since it failed to respond to the opinion of Dr. Parag) and in particular a case for treatment of the Second Claimant in Trinidad and Tobago. Further, that the permission given to the Defendants to amend their pleadings by order of the 13 th March 2012 could not provide a blanket protection to the Defendants from the consequences of failure to comply with Rule It was argued that not only is compliance with this rule essential to proper administration of justice, it is also important to ensure that no party gains an unfair advantage by a failure to disclose all relevant facts. 14. While Counsel admitted the facts set out at paragraph 5 and 6 above, it was contended that there was no order in respect of the Defendants objection to the Claimants alleged non-compliant Amended Statement of Case and further no deferment of any decision. Page 6 of 17

7 15. Contrary to the Second Defendants submission that the pleadings issues were deferred on 27 th March 2012 when the court vacated its order of the 13 th March 2012, Counsel for the Claimants contended that the effect of vacating the order is to render that order void. Thus, the court could not have intended to provide the Defendants with permission to amend their Defences at any time in the future. It was submitted therefore that the Defendants were not entitled to amend their Defences, as permission must be sought. 16. It was also contended that to allow the Second Defendant s application will prejudice the Claimants as the Claimants cannot be expected to meet a case on correspondence when no material facts have been pleaded. Further, that the Second Defendant by its delay, was allowed to expert shop to make out a case for its position that adequate treatment for the Second Claimant will be available in Trinidad and Tobago. In this regard, Counsel noted that the Second Defendant s developing intention to advance a case for treatment in Trinidad and Tobago could be seen at least 18 months before the Application of the Second Defendant s to amend its Defence for example by letters dated 31 st December 2013 and 22 nd May 2014 to Dr. David Toby. 17. Counsel for the Claimants also argued that the Claimants will be prejudiced and this injustice could not be rectified by providing an opportunity to the Claimants to meet the newly pleaded case. The Claimants say it has taken a long time to prepare their evidence to support their existing case and it is not known the time it would take to instruct experts to meet a case for treatment in Trinidad and Tobago. Further, Counsel contended that statements cannot make good defective pleadings on behalf of a Claimant or be used to as a substitute for a short statement of all the facts relied upon by the Claimant: Seebalack (supra) paragraphs The Claimants accept that promptitude in bringing the application is dependent on the factual circumstances of the case. However, it was contended that the Second Defendant failed to plead its case in December 2010 and continued in breach of the Rules until the Claimants brought this to the Second Defendant s attention in June Further, it was Page 7 of 17

8 submitted that the Second Defendant has not proffered any good explanation for the change not having been made prior to the first CMC. 19. In considering the factors set out in Rule 20.1(3A), it was submitted that: a. Having regard to the administration of justice, allowing the amendment more than 3 years after the Second Defendant became a party to proceedings and when the Claimants had been previously refused an application to re-amend its Statement of Case on the ground of lack of promptness, would be to deal with the parties unfairly and encourage disregard of the rules of pleading; b. While the Second Defendant had denied responsibility, it now proposes to not dispute certain facts relating to treatment of the Second Claimant (para 51(e)) of the Claimants submission. This, the Claimants say amounts to factual inconsistencies with what has been certified as the truth. c. The change is not necessary because of any circumstances which became known after the first case management conference. d. It is not known whether the trial date would remain unaffected. It was argued that to allow the amendment would be to place the burden on the Claimants to prove that services are not available in Trinidad, which the Claimants say should not be the burden. Instead, it is argued that the Claimant need only prove that what is claimed is reasonable. e. Prejudice would be caused to the Claimant as it will now be necessary to obtain expert evidence to deal with the Defendant s case, thus the trial may be extended and further costs incurred. 20. Counsel concluded that refusing the application would not bar the Second Defendant from defending the claim, but simply from adducing evidence in support of a case for treatment in Trinidad and Tobago. Page 8 of 17

9 First Defendant Submissions 21. The First Defendant adopted all the submissions of the Second Defendant. 22. According to the First Defendant the case on quantum did not become a live issue until liability had been disposed on 21 st January Further, that there were party to party correspondence between November 2013 and January 2014 where the Defendants informed the Claimants that (1) they did not regard residence in the USA as a reasonable course of action to take, (2) the proper approach to the calculation of damages was on the basis of residence in Trinidad and Tobago, (3) the current and future care needs of the Second Claimant could be provided in Trinidad and Tobago. Thus, the First Defendant contended that the Claimants were aware of the Defendants position prior to the service of witness statements (February 2014) and the service and filing of expert evidence (June 2014). 23. Counsel for the First Defendant submitted that the court ought to consider the state of the pleadings generally. It was noted that the Re-Amended Statement of Case and the Amended Schedule are out of date and/or defective. Further, that the sum pleaded in the Statement of Case is inconsistent with the sum now proffered in evidence. 24. It was also argued that the Claimants pleadings also do not comply with Part 8 and if the amendment is not to be permitted, they ought to be forbidden from relying on the case implicit in the evidence, that is, a case for treatment in the USA. 25. Counsel submitted that the burden of proof is on the Claimants to prove that the damages claimed are fair, just and reasonable, which requires that the Claimants prove it reasonable to move to the USA. It was contended that the starting point therefore is assessment of damages with reference to Trinidad and Tobago cost. Thus, it was submitted that the case cannot be dealt with justly unless and until the Claimants files a Re-reamended Statement of Case. Page 9 of 17

10 26. The First Defendant also argued that there would be no prejudice to the Claimants as the assessment is a year away and supplemental reports can be filed with respect to expert evidence. 27. Counsel stated that the need to amend the Defences was overtaken by the splitting of the trial into liability and quantum. Further that the need to amend was overtaken by the Claimants conduct in giving the appearance that they too would seek to amend their pleadings. The First Defendant contended that a change in circumstances was the service of witness and expert evidence, since before this the Defendants could not have known what the Claimants care experts would have said were the needs of the First Claimant. In light of this change in circumstances, the First Defendant submitted that the Second Defendant did act promptly in making the application. Second Defendant s submissions in reply to the Claimants submissions 28. Attorney for the Second Defendant submitted that the Claimants Attorney erroneously stated that the court did not defer its decision on the non-compliant Re-Amended Statement of Case issue. In support counsel restated a portion of the court s proceedings Judge: Now- in any event that really goes to quantum doesnt it? Claimants attorney: Yes Judge: I would have to look at it carefully to decide what it is I am going to do. Or if I should do anything in the first place because there is really no application per se before me. In any event, I would prefer to leave the matter until we are dealing with the issue of quantum. Is there any difficulty with that really, I mean it is not going to affect our trial. 29. It was further argued that the Defendant has complied with Part 10 of the CPR since at the time of filing the Defence no Defendants expert had seen the Second Claimant for the purpose of agreeing or disputing medical reports. Thus at the time they could not Page 10 of 17

11 plead anymore than they did. It was contended that the details of the nature of the case the Defendants had to meet emerged from the Claimants filed witness statements. 30. It was also submitted that there would be no prejudice to the Claimants, contrary to their argument that granting the amendment would mean that they would have to seek additional expert evidence. In this regard, it was stated that the basis of the expert opinion and evidence sought by the Claimants in the first place was that care in Trinidad and Tobago was insufficient or unavailable for the Second Claimant. Good explanation 31. Rule 20.1(3) sets out the threshold requirements for the grant of an application to amend pleadings after the first CMC. The court must find both that there is a good explanation for the change not having been made prior to the first CMC and that it was made promptly to grant the applicant permission to amend. The grant of permission is not automatic even after the requirements in Rule 20.1 (3) are met, the court may grant permission and in considering whether to do so must have regard to the factors set out at Rule 20.1(3A). 32. Owing to the fact that this was a case where the issues of liability and quantum were separated, the court must consider the first CMC to be the first CMC on the issue of quantum. The first CMC was held on the 31 October Whether a good explanation has been shown is a question of fact to be determined in all the circumstances of the case, and is therefore a matter of judicial discretion: The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Miguel Regis Civil Appeal No 79 of In Roopnarine and anr v Kissoo and ors C.A.CIV.52/2012 Mendonca JA explained: An explanation therefore that connotes real or substantial fault on the part of the person seeking relief cannot amount to a good explanation for the breach. On Page 11 of 17

12 the other hand a good explanation does not mean the complete absence of fault. It must at least render the breach excusable. As the Court of Appeal observed in Regis, supra, what is required is a good explanation not an infallible one. When considering the explanation for the breach it must not therefore be subjected to such scrutiny so as to require a standard of perfection. 35. The following explanation was given by the Second Defendant and the Claimants in their submissions in fact verified the accuracy of the facts stated below: a. By letter dated 25 th October 2013 the Claimants indicated an intention to seek to further amend their Statement of Case; b. On the 31 st October 2013 the first CMC on quantum was held wherein the court gave directions for filing of evidence on quantum; c. Between 28 th November 2013 and 22 nd January 2014 the parties exchanged further correspondence on the availability of care for the Second Claimant in Trinidad and Tobago; d. On the 14 th February 2014 the Claimants filed and served their witness statements of fact which included evidence in support of making a case that service and facilities for care of the Second Claimant are inadequate or unavailable in Trinidad and Tobago. On the 16 th May 2014 the Defendants filed and served their witness statements of fact including evidence of the service and facilities for care of the Second Claimant available in Trinidad and Tobago; e. On the 17 th June 2014 the Claimants abandoned their position that they would seek further amendment of their pleadings. 36. It would seem therefore, that between October 2013 and June 2014, while the Second Defendant was aware of the Claimants position on a claim for treatment in the USA, they had been operating under the impression that the Claimants intended to amend their pleadings. Thus to make an application to amend its Defence before the 17 th June 2014 would have perhaps been futile, premature and a wasted expense as a further amendment may have been necessary after the Claimants amendment. The Second Defendant s action (or inaction) was due to what had been communicated by the Claimants. Page 12 of 17

13 37. It is important to note again that the issues of liability and quantum were separated, thus any amendment in relation to the issue of quantum could not be made before assessment had begun. It is to be remembered that the Second Defendant s case had been a denial of liability on the basis that the First Defendant was not its employee at the time of the incident resulting in damage to the Second Claimant. It is evident thus, that subsequent to admission of liability and the commencement of assessment proceedings, there would be a need for the Second Defendant to amend its Defence to reflect the new position of acceptance of liability. 38. In the court s opinion the Second Defendant s decision to delay its application to amend its defence on the possibility that, firstly the Claimants would hold true to their word and apply to further amend their pleadings and secondly, that the application to amend would be granted was perhaps a little presumptuous. 39. In Real Time Systems Limited v Renraw Investments Limited Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2011 it was stated that the thrust of the CPR, 1998 is towards litigation with full disclosure at the earliest opportunity and against tactical non-disclosure for the purposes of gaining strategic advantages in the conduct of litigation. While the Claimants rely on this in opposition to allowing the Second Defendants the opportunity to amend its Defence at this stage, the court is of the view that it is equally applicable to the Claimants action in abandoning their position to seek further amendment of their pleadings. It appears to the court that the Claimants late indication that they no longer wished to amend their pleadings even after months of correspondence indicating their position with respect to seeking treatment in the USA may have been a strategic move to gain an advantage in the assessment proceedings. 40. As noted above, a good explanation does not mean the complete absence of fault, what is required is a good explanation not an infallible one. Taking this into consideration, the court accepts the Second Defendant s explanation. While the Second Defendant s delay Page 13 of 17

14 was premised on a somewhat bold belief, it does offer an acceptable explanation in these circumstances. Promptitude 41. There has been no dispute as to the meaning of prompt and in this regard the court agrees with the submission of both parties on the applicable law. Promptitude is influenced by the context and facts of each case. 42. For the reasons explained above, the court considers that in the circumstances, although an application could have been made after the first CMC was held in October 2013, the relevant time from which the court ought to judge the Second Defendant s promptness, is 17 th June 2014 when the Claimant indicated their position that they would not seek further amendment of their pleadings. 43. The Second Defendant s application was made on the 27 th June In the circumstances already discussed above, the court is of the view that the application was made promptly. Rule 20.1(3A) factors Interests of the administration of justice 44. The court agrees with the submissions of the Second Defendant that the parties are under a duty to further the overriding objective and assist the court in its case management of the matter and in particular, the court s duty to deal with cases justly. Further, the court is in agreement with Counsel s submission that the interest of justice favours granting the application so as to ensure the parties be on equal footing, in particularly in light of the substantial amount of damages involved in the claim. An amendment is required to identify precisely the issues to be addressed and the parameters of the case. The court is firm in the view that it would go against the grain of the intention of the CPR for the Page 14 of 17

15 court to deny an amendment at this stage in light of what has previously transpired in this case. Failure of the party or attorney 45. The change has not become necessary because of a failure of the party or his attorney. Factually inconsistent with what is already certified 46. The second Defendant denied liability in the claim. The intended change is not inconsistent with what has already been certified as a denial of liability would necessarily include a denial of all quantum claims. The court notes here that contrary to the submissions of the Claimant, the Second Defendant was not in breach of Part 10. The Second Defendant denied the claim and set out their alternative explanation that is to say that the First Defendant was not its employee. Change in circumstances 47. The court is of the view that there had been a change of circumstances after the first CMC when the Claimants suddenly abandoned their position that they would seek further amendment of their pleadings on the 17 th June Prior to this, the Second Defendant believed that an amendment to its Defence would have been required subsequent to the Claimants application to further amend their pleadings. Trial date can still be met 48. The trial dates are scheduled for July 2015, therefore there is no reason why the dates cannot be met. Counsel for the Claimants argued that to allow the amendment would be to endorse the placing of the burden on the Claimants to prove that services are not available in Trinidad, while it ought to be that the Claimant need only prove that what is claimed is reasonable. The court does not agree that this would be the result of the Page 15 of 17

16 amendment. The Defendant would not be proffering a case for treatment in Trinidad, but merely defending the claim that treatment in the US is reasonable having regard to that which is available in Trinidad. Further, it cannot be said that to allow the application after denying the Claimants prior application to amend its Statement of Case is prejudicial as argued by Counsel for the Claimants. The Claimants previous application to amend was decided on its own facts and circumstances and ought not to be considered in this entirely separate application based on entirely different circumstances. Prejudice if permission is granted or refused 49. The court is of the view that denying the application would result in greater prejudice to the Second Defendant. Expert evidence has already been filed by all parties. This evidence already includes evidence on the availability of treatment within Trinidad and Tobago and outside. While it may be true that supplemental evidence may become necessary, if the application is not granted the effect would be to deny the Second Defendant of reliance on the evidence already filed setting out a case that reasonable treatment would involve treatment in Trinidad. Thus, it would be that the Claimants are given an unfair advantage in being the only party allowed to adduce evidence of reasonable treatment. It is to be noted that contrary to the Second Defendant s submission that the Claimant did not plead a case for treatment in the USA, it is to be noted that in the Re-Amended Statement of Case filed on 24 th March 2010, the Claimants stated that the Second Defendant receives care in both the USA and Trinidad and Tobago. Further, in a medical report by Dr. Parag dated 4 th March 2007 annexed to the Re-Amended Statement of Case (not 3 rd April 2007 as stated by the Claimants in submissions: see Annex 2 of the Re-Amended Statement of Case), it was stated that care in Trinidad and Tobago is limited in terms of rehabilitation/neurodevelopmental therapy. The doctor advised that the Claimants visit a centre in the USA for consultation and further testing and initiating stimulation therapy. Page 16 of 17

17 50. All things considered therefore, the court is of the view that the application ought to be allowed. The order will therefore grant permission to the Second Defendant to file and serve an amended Defence and the parties shall be heard on the issue of costs. Dated this 30 th day of September Ricky Rahim Judge Page 17 of 17

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DONALDSON-HONEYWELL

IN 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PADMA DASS AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando. VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND. SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership)

IN 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 information

IN 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

IN 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 information

Ruling On the Application to Strike Out the Re-Amended Claim Form and Statement of Case

Ruling 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2010-01117 BETWEEN CRISTAL ROBERTS First Claimant ISAIAH JABARI EMMANUEL ROBERTS (BY HIS NEXT OF KIN AND NEXT FRIEND RONALD ROBERTS)

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN REAL TIME SYSTEMS LIMITED APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND

IN 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 information

(LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH BURKE, DECEASED) DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RONNIE BOODOOSINGH

(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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. San Fernando BETWEEN MCLEOD RICHARDSON AND AVRIL GEORGE

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED Defendant JUDGMENT

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LENNOX PETROLEUM SERVICES LIMITED. And ARTEMIS ENERGY LIMITED NICHOLAS ROGER MIKE ABIGAIL DE SOUZA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LENNOX PETROLEUM SERVICES LIMITED. And ARTEMIS ENERGY LIMITED NICHOLAS ROGER MIKE ABIGAIL DE SOUZA REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CV 2017-04683 BETWEEN LENNOX PETROLEUM SERVICES LIMITED Applicant And ARTEMIS ENERGY LIMITED NICHOLAS ROGER MIKE ABIGAIL DE SOUZA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND BETWEEN AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN YVONNE ROSE MARICHEAU. And MAUREEN BHARAT PEREIRA. And

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT AND SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED. And EDUCATION FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED [EFCL] And

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT AND AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CELEST CHAITRAM AND ANDREW SAHATOO MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CELEST CHAITRAM AND ANDREW SAHATOO MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CELEST CHAITRAM AND Claimant ANDREW SAHATOO MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ******************************************

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE M. REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2016-01971 BETWEEN DANE DURHAM Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND RULING. that he was a prison officer and that on the 17 th June, 2006, he reported for duty at the

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND RULING. that he was a prison officer and that on the 17 th June, 2006, he reported for duty at the TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2010/2501 BETWEEN ELIAS ALEXANDER Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER APPEARANCES

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. Anand Beharrylal AND. Dhanraj Soodeen. Ricky Ramoutar

IN 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 information

ECONO CAR RENTALS LIMITED GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

ECONO 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DENISE VIOLET STEVENS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DENISE VIOLET STEVENS THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2013/0069 BETWEEN: DENISE VIOLET STEVENS and Claimant LUXURY HOTELS INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN (1) CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (2) COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD) LIMITED AND

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP MYRTLE DORTOTHY PARTAP

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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO JUDGMENT THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2010-05237 BETWEEN MIGUEL REGIS Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honorable Mr. Justice

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. TROPICAL MAINTENANCE AND GENERAL CONTRACTING LIMITED Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. TROPICAL MAINTENANCE AND GENERAL CONTRACTING LIMITED Defendant THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: CV2016-02551 BETWEEN CADMUS HOLDINGS LIMITED Claimant AND TROPICAL MAINTENANCE AND GENERAL CONTRACTING LIMITED Defendant Before

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RHONDA TAYLOR. And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RHONDA TAYLOR. And REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2009-00226 Between RHONDA TAYLOR And PRIEST TITRE PRESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ANDY SOOKHOO LATCHMAN BOLA INDUSTRIAL RENTALS LIMITED

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BETWEEN AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RODNEY KHADAROO AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between ROBERTO CHARLES AND SHASTRI PRABHUDIAL

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LENNOX OFFSHORE SERVICES LIMITED AND DECISION

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND

IN 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 information

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MABLE PHILLIP (Acting through her Attorney Nancy Mc Kenzie Greene) and CORRINE CLARA

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MABLE PHILLIP (Acting through her Attorney Nancy Mc Kenzie Greene) and CORRINE CLARA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES GRENADA CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2013/0362 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MABLE PHILLIP (Acting through her Attorney Nancy Mc Kenzie Greene)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN KKRV CONSOLIDATED MARINE SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT

IN 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 information

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND SAINT LUCIA THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. 0583/1998 BETWEEN BERTHA FRANCIS Claimant AND FIRST CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (B DOS) LTD. formerly CIBC Caribbean

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED AND LOUIS ANDRE MONTEIL RICHARD TROTMAN STONE STREET CAPITAL LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED AND LOUIS ANDRE MONTEIL RICHARD TROTMAN STONE STREET CAPITAL LIMITED IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2010-01352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED AND LOUIS ANDRE MONTEIL RICHARD TROTMAN STONE STREET CAPITAL LIMITED FIRST

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2013-004233 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 information

Civil Procedure Act 2010

Civil Procedure Act 2010 Examinable excerpts of Civil Procedure Act 2010 as at 2 October 2018 1 Purposes CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY (1) The main purposes of this Act are (a) to reform and modernise the laws, practice, procedure and

More information

1.1 Explain when it is necessary and appropriate to make an interim application to the court

1.1 Explain when it is necessary and appropriate to make an interim application to the court Title Tactics and costs in Commercial Litigation Level 4 Credit value 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the procedures for making an interim application to the court Assessment criteria

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh AND Ravi Dass AND Carl Mohammed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh AND Ravi Dass AND Carl Mohammed THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2012-00434 BETWEEN Evelyn Phulmatti Ranjitsingh Joseph Claimant AND Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JUDITH JONES

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY- SAN FERNANDO AND

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2016 CLAIM NO. 661 OF 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2016 BETWEEN: STEVE FULLER Claimant AND FORT STREET TOURISM VILLAGE HENRY YOUNG BELIZE MARINE & SAND CO. LTD. First Defendant Second Defendant

More information

GEORGE HUTCHINSON EVERETT O SULLIVAN. Interlocutory application - Amendment to particulars of claim after end of relevant limitation period

GEORGE HUTCHINSON EVERETT O SULLIVAN. Interlocutory application - Amendment to particulars of claim after end of relevant limitation period [2017] JMSC Civ. 91 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CLAIM NO. 2013HCV00152 BETWEEN AND GEORGE HUTCHINSON EVERETT O SULLIVAN CLAIMANT DEFENDANT Interlocutory application - Amendment to particulars

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CRISTAL ROBERTS ISAIAH JABARI EMANUEL ROBERTS (BY HIS NEXT OF KIN AND NEXT FRIEND RONALD ROBERTS) And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CRISTAL ROBERTS ISAIAH JABARI EMANUEL ROBERTS (BY HIS NEXT OF KIN AND NEXT FRIEND RONALD ROBERTS) And THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2010-01117 Between CRISTAL ROBERTS ISAIAH JABARI EMANUEL ROBERTS (BY HIS NEXT OF KIN AND NEXT FRIEND RONALD ROBERTS) First Claimant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2009-02708 BETWEEN SYDNEY ORR APPLICANT AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice A. des Vignes

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND MAHADEO MAHARAJ AND GUARDIAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REASONS

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando BETWEEN. KALAWATIE GODEK also referred to as Jenny Godek

IN 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 information

THE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act

THE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act THE COURTS ACT Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act 1. Title These rules may be cited as the Supreme Court (International

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And

IN 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 information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SONYA YOUNG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SONYA YOUNG IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2016 CLAIM NO. 513 of 2014 ROBERT S GROVE LTD. CLAIMANT AND JEAN-MARC TASSE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SONYA YOUNG Hearings 2016 22 nd January 29

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ROY FELIX. And. DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DUKHARAN DHABAN. And THE PORT AUTHORITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (PATT)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DUKHARAN DHABAN. And THE PORT AUTHORITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (PATT) REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2008-01684 BETWEEN DUKHARAN DHABAN CLAIMANT And THE PORT AUTHORITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (PATT) THE SEAMEN AND WATERFRONT WORKER S TRADE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And. HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant

IN 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 information

A & A MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS AND COMPANY LIMITED PETROLEUM COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

A & 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 information

ST. GEORGE WEST COUNTY PORT OF SPAIN PETTY CIVIL COURT

ST. 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, SAN FERNANDO BETWEEN DANIEL SAHADEO ABRAHAM SAHADEO AGNES SULTANTI SELEINA SAHADEO AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, SAN FERNANDO BETWEEN DANIEL SAHADEO ABRAHAM SAHADEO AGNES SULTANTI SELEINA SAHADEO AND THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, SAN FERNANDO Claim. No. CV2009 01979 BETWEEN DANIEL SAHADEO ABRAHAM SAHADEO AGNES SULTANTI SELEINA SAHADEO AND Claimants PERCIVAL JULIEN

More information

THE LMAA TERMS (2006)

THE 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN (1) CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (2) COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD) LIMITED AND

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. (POLICE CONSTABLE) EDGAR BAIRD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants.

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between FIDEL RAMPERSAD RAJ KAMAL REDDY AVUTHU RYAN RICHARDSON VISHAM BHIMULL SHAUN LYNCH AND

IN 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 information

JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV BETWEEN D. C. DEVELOPERS LIMITED. Claimant AND

JUDGMENT 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 information

A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA

A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA A BILL FOR A LAW FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN EKITI STATE EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA 1 EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE BILL, 2018 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Objectives

More information

JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN. CV Civil Appeal No. P005/2017 BETWEEN MARGARET FLETCHER

JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN. CV Civil Appeal No. P005/2017 BETWEEN MARGARET FLETCHER REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2015-01289 Civil Appeal No. P005/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN MARGARET FLETCHER EVERY OTHER PERSON IN OCCUPATION OF No. 1 OROPUCHE ROAD IN THE WARD

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MUKESH SIRJU VIDESH SAMUEL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINDIAD AND TOBAGO DECISION

IN 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 information

THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

THE 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN READYMIX (WEST INDIES) LIMITED AND SUPER INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED ***********************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN READYMIX (WEST INDIES) LIMITED AND SUPER INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED *********************** REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2010-03435 BETWEEN READYMIX (WEST INDIES) LIMITED Claimant AND SUPER INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED Defendant ***********************

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE LLOYD CHARLES AND NORTH WEST REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO *********************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE LLOYD CHARLES AND NORTH WEST REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ********************* THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2008-02668 HCA 1454 of 1999 BETWEEN LLOYD CHARLES DIPNARINE MUNGAL Claimants AND NORTH WEST REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY THE ATTORNEY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/029 BETWEEN: THE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant and LIBERTY CLUB LIMITED Respondent HCVAP 2010/030 LIBERTY CLUB LIMITED Appellant THE BEACON INSURANCE

More information

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PAUL HACKSHAW. and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PAUL HACKSHAW. and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV2008/0827 BETWEEN: PAUL HACKSHAW Claimant and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY Defendant APPEARANCES:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN FRANCIS VINCENT AND

IN 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 information

THE 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 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 information

JUDGMENT. Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica)

JUDGMENT. Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica) Easter Term [2018] UKPC 12 Privy Council Appeal No 0011 of 2017 JUDGMENT Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited (Appellant) v Taylor-Wright (Respondent) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica before Lord

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. George Ojar. Narendra Ojar Maharaj. And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. George Ojar. Narendra Ojar Maharaj. And THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011 02402 BETWEEN George Ojar Narendra Ojar Maharaj And Claimants Liloutie Deosaran also called Shirley Badal Deosaran also

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN 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 information

Re Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd)

Re Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd) Page 1 Judgments Re Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd) [2014] Lexis Citation 259 Chancery Division, Companies

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2009-04393 BETWEEN TALAT TEDDY HOSEIN CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. By way of her Lawful Attorney Kenneth Antoine. And

IN 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 information

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes

More information

Defence and Counterclaim Training. By Andrew Mckie Barrister Clerksroom.

Defence and Counterclaim Training. By Andrew Mckie Barrister Clerksroom. Defence and Counterclaim Training. By Andrew Mckie Barrister Clerksroom Email andrewmckie@btinternet.com/ mckie@clerksroom.com Telephone Mobile: 07739 964012 Office: 0845 083 3000 Website www.clerksroom.com

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ CLAIM NO 275 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD 2014 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review AND IN THE MATTER of section 13 of the Belize City Council Act, Cap 85

More information

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) CONTENTS

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) CONTENTS CONTENTS Rule 1 Scope of Application and Interpretation 1 Rule 2 Notice, Calculation of Periods of Time 3 Rule 3 Notice of Arbitration 4 Rule 4 Response to Notice of Arbitration 6 Rule 5 Expedited Procedure

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. (Executor of the Last Will and Testament of CLYDE DOOKERAN, Deceased) JUDGMENT- PROCEDURAL APPLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. (Executor of the Last Will and Testament of CLYDE DOOKERAN, Deceased) JUDGMENT- PROCEDURAL APPLICATION THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2008-00287 BETWEEN SHOBHA NARINE DOOKERAN CLAIMANT AND WINSTON DOOKERAN (Executor of the Last Will and Testament of CLYDE DOOKERAN,

More information

Suggested Model Directions for Clinical Negligence cases before Master Ungley and Master Yoxall

Suggested Model Directions for Clinical Negligence cases before Master Ungley and Master Yoxall Suggested Model Directions for Clinical Negligence cases before Master Ungley and Master Yoxall Version 2 (27/6/02) Introductory note These directions are based on orders that have been made and obeyed;

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2011-02975 IN THE MATTER OF THE PARTITION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 81:02 IN THE MATTER OF ALL SINGULAR THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF L COMPRISING

More information