Yohanna George v Vernon O’Brien et al

COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA CLAIM NO DOMHCV2010 BETWEEN: YOHANNA GEORGE RespondenUClaimant AND VERNON O'BRIEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DOMINICA ApplicanUDefendants Before Master Pearletta Lanns Dated the 2nd June 2010 Appearances Mrs Kathy Buffong-Royer for Applicants/Defendants Mrs Dawn Yearwood-Stewart for RespondenUClaimant ORDER APPLICATION having been made by the Applicants/Defendants for an Order setting aside the Default judgment entered against them on 9th March 2010; AND upon considering the affidavits in support of and in opposition to the Application; AND having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties; AND the court not being satisfied that the Applicants/Defendants have satisfied the conjunctive requirements of CPR13.3; in particular, the court is not satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, the Applicants/Defendants have applied promptly to set aside the Default Judgment after finding out on 16th March 2010 that Judgment had been entered. The court is of the view that the period 6 weeks between having found out the default judgment had been entered and the filing of the application to set it aside was not reasonable. Secondly the Defendants have not provided a good explanation for failure to file a Defence and have not shown areasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim. / In arriving at this decision, I have taken cognizance of the Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Company and ED & FMan Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another which set the standard in relation to reasonable prospects of success. This test has been applied to various decisions of our courts including Earl Hodge and Albron Hodge BVIHCV 2007/0098; Louise Martin v Antigua Commercial Bank - Antigua and Barbuda Claim No ANUHCV1997/0115; and which interpret CPR 13.3 and CPR 26.8. I have also taken into account Kenrick Thomas v RBTT Bank Caribbean Ltd - St Vincent and the Grenadines Civil Appeal No 13 of 2006 delivered 13th October 2005 which mandates that all the criteria in CPR 13.3 must be satisfied. Regard has also been paid to Ferdinand Frampton v. Ian Pinard et al - Dominica Civil Appeal No 15 of 2005 which interprets the meaning of the words "only ir set forth in Rule 13.3(1). THE COURT DOTH THEREFORE ORDER that

[1]The application by the Applicants/Defendants is refused with costs to the RespondenUClaimant to be assessed if not agreed.

By the Court

COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA CLAIM NO DOMHCV2010 BETWEEN: YOHANNA GEORGE RespondenUClaimant AND VERNON O’BRIEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DOMINICA ApplicanUDefendants Before Master Pearletta Lanns Dated the 2nd June 2010 Appearances Mrs Kathy Buffong-Royer for Applicants/Defendants Mrs Dawn Yearwood-Stewart for RespondenUClaimant ORDER APPLICATION having been made by the Applicants/Defendants for an Order setting aside the Default judgment entered against them on 9th March 2010; AND upon considering the affidavits in support of and in opposition to the Application; AND having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties; AND the court not being satisfied that the Applicants/Defendants have satisfied the conjunctive requirements of CPR13.3; in particular, the court is not satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, the Applicants/Defendants have applied promptly to set aside the Default Judgment after finding out on 16th March 2010 that Judgment had been entered. The court is of the view that the period 6 weeks between having found out the default judgment had been entered and the filing of the application to set it aside was not reasonable. Secondly the Defendants have not provided a good explanation for failure to file a Defence and have not shown areasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim. 1 / In arriving at this decision, I have taken cognizance of the Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Company and ED & FMan Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another which set the standard in relation to reasonable prospects of success. This test has been applied to various decisions of our courts including Earl Hodge and Albron Hodge BVIHCV 2007/0098; Louise Martin v Antigua Commercial Bank – Antigua and Barbuda Claim No ANUHCV1997/0115; and which interpret CPR 13.3 and CPR 26.8. I have also taken into account Kenrick Thomas v RBTT Bank Caribbean Ltd – St Vincent and the Grenadines Civil Appeal No 13 of 2006 delivered 13th October 2005 which mandates that all the criteria in CPR 13.3 must be satisfied. Regard has also been paid to Ferdinand Frampton v. Ian Pinard et al – Dominica Civil Appeal No 15 of 2005 which interprets the meaning of the words “only ir set forth in Rule 13.3(1). THE COURT DOTH THEREFORE ORDER that

[1]The application by the Applicants/Defendants is refused with costs to the RespondenUClaimant to be assessed if not agreed. By the Court