Allan Walker et al v Ralph Walker

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2003 BETWEEN: [1] ALLAN WALKER [2] GAIL WALKER Appellants and RALPH WALKER Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders Chief Justice [Ag.] On written submissions: Ms. N. Sylvester for the Appellant Mr. O. Dennie for the Respondent -------------------------------------------- 2004: May 10; September 20. -------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT

[1]SAUNDERS, C.J. [AG.]: This is a procedural appeal from the decision of Master Brian Cottle. At a Case management Conference held on 14th January, 2003, the Master had struck out the Defence filed as disclosing no reasonable grounds of succeeding under CPR 2000 Part 26.3(i)(b).

[2]There is little need to delve deeply into the facts of this case. It apparently concerns a family dispute over the ownership of and rights to a stone quarry. The Appellants, who are the Defendants, are children of the Respondent who is the claimant. The Appellants had filed a Defence denying many of the factual allegations of the claimant and putting forward a substantial body of positive allegations showing why the claims of the claimant should not be upheld. On its face the Defence filed does appear to disclose triable issues of fact.

[3]No reasons have been given as to why the Defence was struck out and Counsel for the Respondent did not favour the Court with a single reason why the Master’s decision should be sustained. Indeed, no attempt was made to oppose the appeal. In all the circumstances I would allow the appeal with costs to the Appellant in the sum of $2,500.00.

Adrian Saunders

Chief Justice [Ag.]

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2003 BETWEEN:

[1]ALLAN WALKER

[2]GAIL WALKER Appellants and RALPH WALKER Respondent Before: the Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders Chief Justice [Ag.] On written submissions: Ms. N. Sylvester for the Appellant Mr. O. Dennie for the Respondent 2004: May 10; September 20. JUDGMENT

[3]No reasons have been given as to why the Defence was struck out and Counsel for the Respondent did not favour the Court with a single reason why the Master’s decision should be sustained. Indeed, no attempt was made to oppose the appeal. In all the circumstances I would allow the appeal with costs to the Appellant in the sum of $2,500.00. Adrian Saunders Chief Justice [Ag.]

[2]There is little need to delve deeply into the facts of this case. It apparently concerns a family dispute over the ownership of and rights to a stone quarry. The Appellants, who are the Defendants, are children of the Respondent who is the claimant. The Appellants had filed a Defence denying many of the factual allegations of the claimant and putting forward a substantial body of positive allegations showing why the claims of the claimant should not be upheld. On its face the Defence filed does appear to disclose triable issues of fact. 1

[1]SAUNDERS, C.J. [AG.]: This is a procedural appeal from the decision of Master Brian Cottle. At a Case management Conference held on 14th January, 2003, the Master had struck out the Defence filed as disclosing no reasonable grounds of succeeding under CPR 2000 Part 26.3(i)(b).