Cecil Charles v Marlon Brown – Addendum
- Collection
- High Court
- Country
- Antigua
- Case number
- Claim No. ANUHCV2019/0600
- Judge
- Key terms
- Upstream post
- 75160
- AKN IRI
- /akn/ecsc/ag/hc/2022/judgment/anuhcv2019-0600/post-75160
-
75160-Cecil-Charles-judgment-Addendum-1.pdf current 2026-06-21 02:28:24.484514+00 · 126,164 B
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2019/0600 BETWEEN: CECIL CHARLES Claimant -and- MARLON BROWN Defendant Appearances: Ms. Sylvia O’Mard for the Claimant Ms. Sherrie-Ann Bradshaw for the Defendant ------------------------------------------ 2022: November 22nd ------------------------------------------ Addendum to the Oral Judgment delivered on the 22nd November 2022
[1]Byer J:. At the delivery of the above judgment on the 22nd November 2022, the court was informed by counsel for the defendant that she had dutifully filed her submissions as due, on the 14th November, 2022 although the same were never brought to the attention of the court.
[2]Therefore at the delivery of the judgment the court undertook to produce an addendum to the judgment after considering the submissions of the defendant. This is therefore in fulfilment of that undertaking by the Court.
[3]I have now considered the submissions by the defendant and note that they withdrew their reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act No 8 of 1997 (the Act). That position is noted by the court but does not in any event affect the findings of this Court that the same do not apply to the proceedings at hand as stated at paragraphs 23 to 27 of the judgment as delivered.
[4]In relation to the submissions that there was no intention as between the defendant and the claimant that the defendant would repay the debt as paid by the claimant, this court does not accept that there is in fact a requirement for there to exist intention on the part of the parties.
[5]Indeed the Court reiterates its findings that the nature of the obligation between the claimant and the defendant as surety and principal debtor, where the surety is pressed to pay on behalf of the principal debtor, has absolutely nothing to do with the intention or agreement as between the parties. 1
[6]The Court therefore orders that the order made on the original oral judgment stands and judgment is entered for the claimant as herein stated.
P. Nicola Byer
High Court Judge
By the Court
Registrar
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2019/0600 BETWEEN: CECIL CHARLES Claimant -and- MARLON BROWN Defendant Appearances: Ms. Sylvia O’Mard for the Claimant Ms. Sherrie-Ann Bradshaw for the Defendant —————————————— 2022: November 22 nd —————————————— Addendum to the Oral Judgment delivered on the 22 nd November 2022
[1]Byer J:. At the delivery of the above judgment on the 22 nd November 2022, the court was informed by counsel for the defendant that she had dutifully filed her submissions as due, on the 14 th November, 2022 although the same were never brought to the attention of the court.
[2]Therefore at the delivery of the judgment the court undertook to produce an addendum to the judgment after considering the submissions of the defendant. This is therefore in fulfilment of that undertaking by the Court.
[3]I have now considered the submissions by the defendant and note that they withdrew their reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act No 8 of 1997 (the Act). That position is noted by the court but does not in any event affect the findings of this Court that the same do not apply to the proceedings at hand as stated at paragraphs 23 to 27 of the judgment as delivered.
[4]In relation to the submissions that there was no intention as between the defendant and the claimant that the defendant would repay the debt as paid by the claimant, this court does not accept that there is in fact a requirement for there to exist intention on the part of the parties.
[5]Indeed the Court reiterates its findings that the nature of the obligation between the claimant and the defendant as surety and principal debtor, where the surety is pressed to pay on behalf of the principal debtor, has absolutely nothing to do with the intention or agreement as between the parties.
[1][6] The Court therefore orders that the order made on the original oral judgment stands and judgment is entered for the claimant as herein stated. Nicola Byer High Court Judge By the Court Registrar
PDF extraction
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2019/0600 BETWEEN: CECIL CHARLES Claimant -and- MARLON BROWN Defendant Appearances: Ms. Sylvia O’Mard for the Claimant Ms. Sherrie-Ann Bradshaw for the Defendant ------------------------------------------ 2022: November 22nd ------------------------------------------ Addendum to the Oral Judgment delivered on the 22nd November 2022
[1]Byer J:. At the delivery of the above judgment on the 22nd November 2022, the court was informed by counsel for the defendant that she had dutifully filed her submissions as due, on the 14th November, 2022 although the same were never brought to the attention of the court.
[2]Therefore at the delivery of the judgment the court undertook to produce an addendum to the judgment after considering the submissions of the defendant. This is therefore in fulfilment of that undertaking by the Court.
[3]I have now considered the submissions by the defendant and note that they withdrew their reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act No 8 of 1997 (the Act). That position is noted by the court but does not in any event affect the findings of this Court that the same do not apply to the proceedings at hand as stated at paragraphs 23 to 27 of the judgment as delivered.
[4]In relation to the submissions that there was no intention as between the defendant and the claimant that the defendant would repay the debt as paid by the claimant, this court does not accept that there is in fact a requirement for there to exist intention on the part of the parties.
[5]Indeed the Court reiterates its findings that the nature of the obligation between the claimant and the defendant as surety and principal debtor, where the surety is pressed to pay on behalf of the principal debtor, has absolutely nothing to do with the intention or agreement as between the parties. 1
[6]The Court therefore orders that the order made on the original oral judgment stands and judgment is entered for the claimant as herein stated.
P. Nicola Byer
High Court Judge
By the Court
Registrar
WordPress
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2019/0600 BETWEEN: CECIL CHARLES Claimant -and- MARLON BROWN Defendant Appearances: Ms. Sylvia O’Mard for the Claimant Ms. Sherrie-Ann Bradshaw for the Defendant —————————————— 2022: November 22 nd —————————————— Addendum to the Oral Judgment delivered on the 22 nd November 2022
[1]Byer J:. At the delivery of the above judgment on the 22 nd November 2022, the court was informed by counsel for the defendant that she had dutifully filed her submissions as due, on the 14 th November, 2022 although the same were never brought to the attention of the court.
[2]Therefore at the delivery of the judgment the court undertook to produce an addendum to the judgment after considering the submissions of the defendant. This is therefore in fulfilment of that undertaking by the Court.
[3]I have now considered the submissions by the defendant and note that they withdrew their reliance on the provisions of the Limitation Act No 8 of 1997 (the Act). That position is noted by the court but does not in any event affect the findings of this Court that the same do not apply to the proceedings at hand as stated at paragraphs 23 to 27 of the judgment as delivered.
[4]In relation to the submissions that there was no intention as between the defendant and the claimant that the defendant would repay the debt as paid by the claimant, this court does not accept that there is in fact a requirement for there to exist intention on the part of the parties.
[5]Indeed the Court reiterates its findings that the nature of the obligation between the claimant and the defendant as surety and principal debtor, where the surety is pressed to pay on behalf of the principal debtor, has absolutely nothing to do with the intention or agreement as between the parties.
[1][6] The Court therefore orders that the order made on the original oral judgment stands and judgment is entered for the claimant as herein stated. Nicola Byer High Court Judge By the Court Registrar
| Run | Started | Status | Method | Paragraphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10969 | 2026-06-21 17:20:16.673199+00 | ok | pymupdf_layout_text | 11 |
| 1632 | 2026-06-21 08:12:12.958087+00 | ok | pymupdf_text | 14 |