Antigua Flight Training Center v Diedre Edgecombe et al
- Collection
- High Court
- Country
- Antigua
- Case number
- Claim No. ANUHCV2011/0046
- Judge
- Key terms
- Upstream post
- 21538
- AKN IRI
- /akn/ecsc/ag/hc/2015/judgment/anuhcv2011-0046/post-21538
-
21538-antiguaflighttrainingcenteranddiedreedgecombeetal.pdf current 2026-06-21 02:57:15.882704+00 · 164,012 B
motion was served on the defendants on 8th December, 2014. have the defendants committed for failure to pay the judgment debt. That notice of committal 2014 and 22nd September, 2014 respectively. On 14th November, 2014 the claimant sought to of Service on 21st August, 2014. The judgment was served on the defendants on 17th September, service. The court office entered judgment for the claimant for failure to file any Acknowledgement 2014. On 24th March, 2014 the claimant applied for judgment in default of acknowledgement of [1] Cottle, J.: The claimant filed a claim form on 22nd January, 2014. It was served on 19th February, Reasons for Decision 2015: March 20 Mr. J. Hewlett for the Defendant Mr. A. Greer for the Claimant Appearances: Defendants DIEDRE EDGECOMBE NORDEL EDGECOMBE and Claimant ANTIGUA FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER BETWEEN: CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2011/0046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA showing any real prospect of successfully defending the claim. explanation for failing to enter acknowledgement of service. They did not exhibit a draft defence soon as reasonably practicable after finding out that judgment had been entered. They gave no
[8]It is to be pointed out that under CPR 2000 13.3 (1) the defendants did not apply to the court as set aside the judgment, the application to set aside was not granted. companies are capable of being litigants and as this objection was the basis for the application to
[7]Given this concession that there was no legal requirement that only natural persons and registered persons.
22.2. He agreed that the rule contemplated litigation by entitles other than natural and legal
[6]At the hearing of the application, counsel for the applicants/defendants considered CPR 2000 part name. Office since 29th August, 2011 and Grace Norman is the sole trader doing business under that business name registered with the Antigua and Barbuda Intellectual Property and Commerce
[5]The claimant filed an affidavit in reply. It was deposed that Antigua Flight Training Center is a filed. company incorporated in the name Antigua Flight Center Inc until six months after the claim was
[4]The application was supported by an affidavit of the first defendant. She swore that there was no acted without authority. setting aside the judgment. He sought to fix counsel for the claimant with liability in costs as having
[3]Counsel for the applicant contended that these constituted exceptional circumstances warranting on the same. law as the claimant is not a party and cannot as a matter of law initiate a claim and obtain judgment law and is incapable of giving instructions. The second ground was that the judgment is contrary to the application were that the claimant is not a legal personality and does not exist as a matter of
[2]On 12th January, 2015 the defendants applied to set aside the judgment in default. The grounds of High Court Judge ~~~ Brian Cottle
[11]I therefore declined to grant the application. claim is to be treated as a claim by a partner under CPR 22.1. [1 0] I had regard to CPR 22.2 (2) which allows for suit by a person in his or her business name. Such a judgment. entity, by itself, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the default
[9]Instead counsel sought to persuade the court that the fact that the claimant is an unincorporated
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2011/0046 BETWEEN: Appearances: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER and DIEDRE EDGECOMBE NORDEL EDGECOMBE Mr. A. Greer for the Claimant Mr. J. Hewlett for the Defendant 2015: March 20 Reasons for Decision Claimant Defendants
[1]Cottle, J.: The claimant filed a claim form on 22nd January, 2014. It was served on 19th February, 2014. On 24th March, 2014 the claimant applied for judgment in default of acknowledgement of service. The court office entered judgment for the claimant for failure to file any Acknowledgement of Service on 21st August, 2014. The judgment was served on the defendants on 17th September, 2014 and 22nd September, 2014 respectively. On 14th November, 2014 the claimant sought to have the defendants committed for failure to pay the judgment debt. That notice of committal motion was served on the defendants on 8th December, 2014.
[2]On 12th January, 2015 the defendants applied to set aside the judgment in default. The grounds of the application were that the claimant is not a legal personality and does not exist as a matter of law and is incapable of giving instructions. The second ground was that the judgment is contrary to law as the claimant is not a party and cannot as a matter of law initiate a claim and obtain judgment on the same.
[3]Counsel for the applicant contended that these constituted exceptional circumstances warranting setting aside the judgment. He sought to fix counsel for the claimant with liability in costs as having acted without authority.
[4]The application was supported by an affidavit of the first defendant. She swore that there was no company incorporated in the name Antigua Flight Center Inc until six months after the claim was filed.
[5]The claimant filed an affidavit in reply. It was deposed that Antigua Flight Training Center is a business name registered with the Antigua and Barbuda Intellectual Property and Commerce Office since 29th August, 2011 and Grace Norman is the sole trader doing business under that name.
[6]At the hearing of the application, counsel for the applicants/defendants considered CPR 2000 part
22.2. He agreed that the rule contemplated litigation by entitles other than natural and legal persons.
[7]Given this concession that there was no legal requirement that only natural persons and registered companies are capable of being litigants and as this objection was the basis for the application to set aside the judgment, the application to set aside was not granted.
[8]It is to be pointed out that under CPR 2000 13.3 (1) the defendants did not apply to the court as soon as reasonably practicable after finding out that judgment had been entered. They gave no explanation for failing to enter acknowledgement of service. They did not exhibit a draft defence showing any real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
[9]Instead counsel sought to persuade the court that the fact that the claimant is an unincorporated entity, by itself, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the default judgment. [1 0] I had regard to CPR 22.2 (2) which allows for suit by a person in his or her business name. Such a claim is to be treated as a claim by a partner under CPR 22.1.
[11]I therefore declined to grant the application. Brian Cottle High Court Judge
PDF extraction
motion was served on the defendants on 8th December, 2014. have the defendants committed for failure to pay the judgment debt. That notice of committal 2014 and 22nd September, 2014 respectively. On 14th November, 2014 the claimant sought to of Service on 21st August, 2014. The judgment was served on the defendants on 17th September, service. The court office entered judgment for the claimant for failure to file any Acknowledgement 2014. On 24th March, 2014 the claimant applied for judgment in default of acknowledgement of [1] Cottle, J.: The claimant filed a claim form on 22nd January, 2014. It was served on 19th February, Reasons for Decision 2015: March 20 Mr. J. Hewlett for the Defendant Mr. A. Greer for the Claimant Appearances: Defendants DIEDRE EDGECOMBE NORDEL EDGECOMBE and Claimant ANTIGUA FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER BETWEEN: CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2011/0046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA showing any real prospect of successfully defending the claim. explanation for failing to enter acknowledgement of service. They did not exhibit a draft defence soon as reasonably practicable after finding out that judgment had been entered. They gave no
[8]It is to be pointed out that under CPR 2000 13.3 (1) the defendants did not apply to the court as set aside the judgment, the application to set aside was not granted. companies are capable of being litigants and as this objection was the basis for the application to
[7]Given this concession that there was no legal requirement that only natural persons and registered persons.
22.2. He agreed that the rule contemplated litigation by entitles other than natural and legal
[6]At the hearing of the application, counsel for the applicants/defendants considered CPR 2000 part name. Office since 29th August, 2011 and Grace Norman is the sole trader doing business under that business name registered with the Antigua and Barbuda Intellectual Property and Commerce
[5]The claimant filed an affidavit in reply. It was deposed that Antigua Flight Training Center is a filed. company incorporated in the name Antigua Flight Center Inc until six months after the claim was
[4]The application was supported by an affidavit of the first defendant. She swore that there was no acted without authority. setting aside the judgment. He sought to fix counsel for the claimant with liability in costs as having
[3]Counsel for the applicant contended that these constituted exceptional circumstances warranting on the same. law as the claimant is not a party and cannot as a matter of law initiate a claim and obtain judgment law and is incapable of giving instructions. The second ground was that the judgment is contrary to the application were that the claimant is not a legal personality and does not exist as a matter of
[2]On 12th January, 2015 the defendants applied to set aside the judgment in default. The grounds of High Court Judge ~~~ Brian Cottle
[11]I therefore declined to grant the application. claim is to be treated as a claim by a partner under CPR 22.1. [1 0] I had regard to CPR 22.2 (2) which allows for suit by a person in his or her business name. Such a judgment. entity, by itself, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the default
[9]Instead counsel sought to persuade the court that the fact that the claimant is an unincorporated
WordPress
the EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME court ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2011/0046 BETWEEN: Appearances: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER AND DIEDRE EDGECOMBE NORDEL EDGECOMBE Mr. A. Greer for the Claimant Mr. J. Hewlett for the Defendant 2015: March 20 Reasons for Decision Claimant Defendants
[8]It is to be pointed out that under CPR 2000 13.3 (1) the defendants did not apply to the court as soon as reasonably practicable after finding out that judgment, had been entered. They gave no explanation for failing to enter acknowledgement of service. They did not exhibit a draft defence showing any real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
[7]Given this concession that there was no legal requirement that only natural persons and registered companies are capable of being litigants and as this objection was the basis for the application to set aside the judgment, the application to set aside was not granted.
[3]Counsel for the applicant contended that these constituted exceptional circumstances warranting setting aside the judgment. He sought to fix counsel for the claimant with liability in costs as having acted without authority.
[6]At the hearing of the application, counsel for the applicants/defendants considered CPR 2000 part
[5]The claimant filed an affidavit in reply. It was deposed that Antigua Flight Training Center is a business name registered with the Antigua and Barbuda Intellectual Property and Commerce Office since 29th August, 2011 and Grace Norman is the sole trader doing business under that name.
[4]The application was supported by an affidavit of the first defendant. She swore that there was no company incorporated in the name Antigua Flight Center Inc until six months after the claim was filed.
[2]On 12th January, 2015 the defendants applied to set aside the judgment in default. The grounds of the application were that the claimant is not a legal personality and does not exist as a matter of law and is incapable of giving instructions. The second ground was that the judgment is contrary to law as the claimant is not a party and cannot as a matter of law initiate a claim and obtain judgment on the same.
[11]I therefore declined to grant the application. Brian Cottle High Court Judge
[9]Instead counsel sought to persuade the court that the fact that the claimant is an unincorporated entity, by itself, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the default judgment. [1 0] I had regard to CPR 22.2 (2) which allows for suit by a person in his or her business name. Such a claim is to be treated as a claim by a partner under CPR 22.1.
[1]Cottle, J.: The claimant filed a claim form on 22nd January, 2014. It was served on 19th February, 2014. On 24th March, 2014 the claimant applied for judgment in default of acknowledgement of service. The court office entered judgment for the claimant for failure to file any Acknowledgement of Service on 21st August, 2014. The judgment was served on the defendants on 17th September, 2014 and 22nd September, 2014 respectively. On 14th November, 2014 the claimant sought to have the defendants committed for failure to pay the judgment debt. That notice of committal motion was served on the defendants on 8th December, 2014.
22.2. He agreed that the rule contemplated litigation by entitles other than natural and legal persons.
| Run | Started | Status | Method | Paragraphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14284 | 2026-06-21 17:36:59.637846+00 | ok | pymupdf_layout_text | 11 |
| 4946 | 2026-06-21 08:17:35.244117+00 | ok | pymupdf_text | 3 |