Steven Steel Supply V Dino Trading and Services PTE limited et al

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO.: 290 OF 1997 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES JUDGMENTS (ENFORCEMENT) ACT, CAP 82 OF THE LAWS OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENDINES, REVISED EDITION 1990 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP 87 OF THE LAWS OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES REVISED EDITION 1990 BETWEEN: STEVEN STEEL SUPPLY Judgment Creditor AND DINO TRADIN(; AND SERVICES PTI( LIMITED DORA SONG CHOO KAM also called DORA PROCHILO .Joined pursuant to order 4?f Court made on August J997 Judgment Dehtor INTERPLEADER SUMMONS CLAIMANT - ASHFORD COLE Appearances: Mr. Joseph Delves for Claimant Ms. Nicole Sylvester and Ms. Rochelle Forde for Judgment Creditor 2003. March 20 2003: April 10.2003 RULING [II BRlICE-L YLE, .J: A Summons It)r Interpleader relief calls upon the Claimants to appear and state the nature and particulars of their respective claims. In both stakeholders and sheriffs Interpleaders the Claimant should swear and tile an affidavit setting out in detail what he claims and the grounds upon which his ,­ ". ." claim is based with such precision as to enable the opposing Claimant or the Execution Creditor to decide whether to oppose it and so that the Court may make an appropriate order. [2J The affidavit should exhibit or contain a list of the goods claimed, or otherwise describe them, so that the parties know exactly what is being claimed.

[3]The Court then has these alternatives at its disposal (a) dismissal of the appbication (b) a summary determination of the merits of the claim (c) a reference of the matter to the judge (d) remission of the proceedings to the County Court (e) a reference of the dispute ft.)r arhitration (f) a reference of the matter to an official reference Del'endant to (g) the substitution or addition or the Claimant as proceedings already begull (h) an order that an issue he slated and tried [4j These alternatives mentioned above are resorted to only after the Court has considered that there is a dispute between them. however nebulolls. to try: and also that (a) a sutl1ciently detailed aflidavit has been supplied by the Claimant (b) whether the Court should direct the sheriff to provide an inventory (c) the discovery of documents [51 The Civil Procedure Rules :2000 at Part 54.2 provides that there can only he a summary determination of the issues by consent of the parties. There has heen no such consent indicated hy the Claimant's Learned Counsel despite the fact that I ,earned Counsel for the Execution Creditor seems to be bowling in that direction. In that regard I rule that if this matter is to proceed any further. it should do so on the determination of the issues or any of the other alternatives atl)remenlioneu.

[6]The main questions I think necessary to determine at this stage is whether in the '} f Claimant's affidavit supporting his claim, detailed and precise information which I can consider sufficient, has been provided to enable the Execution Creditor. a clear view of the issues involved, and whether an absence of such detailed and precise information vitiates the Claimanfs case or claim.

[7]A glance at the affidavit of Ashford Cole the Claimant in this matter, reveals a general statement of the items he :c1aims as "goods and chattels seized by the Sheriff of the High Court under a writ of fieri facias in this action. and referred to in the summons filed on 6th August 2002 ..." /8/ The summons tiled on 6th August 200~ clearly describes the said goods and chattels as "one (1) Isuzu Rodeo recreational vehicle bearing licensed ll11mher Pi\ 868 and one (1) factory building shell. structure. and related scrar melal ami machinery situate at Mount Bentick." Desrite the absence of a clear definition or these goods and chattels in the Claimant's affidavit they are adequately. to my , mind. described in as much detail as rossihle in the summons to gi\ L' lh\.' Execution Creditor a clear idea as to what the Claimant is laying claim to, J therefore do not agree with that limb of Learned Counsel for the Execution Creditor's arguments. and rule against that position. as I am convinced that the affidavit of the Claimant as it stands does not vitiate the Claimant's claim. and cannot therefore invite the Court to dismiss the claim outright. [IOJ Paragraph two of the Claimant's affidavit also gives an outline of the basis for the Claimanfs claim. and is supported by one document - a receipt Exhibit A.C 1. This clearly raises issues that can only be determined at trial issues of fact and law. The supposed deficiency of the receipt. raised by learned Counsel for the I :xecution Creditor is not an issue appropriately determined at this stage. There are issues to be tried, and at this stage that is my only concern. [I t] Having thus determined, I rule that this matter proceed to trial on the issues raised by the Claimant and those by the l:xecution Creditor. with the Claimant Mr. Ashford Cole as the defendant, and the Execution Creditor Steven Steel Supply as the Claimant, costs to the Claimant to be agreed or assessed. Matter is adjourned to the June 2003 Civil list for trial. iI£t~. HIGH COURT JUDGE I f I II ~",>._:,_::,.. 'Jo p Jf,! iII

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO.: 290 OF 1997 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES JUDGMENTS (ENFORCEMENT) ACT, CAP 82 OF THE LAWS OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENDINES, REVISED EDITION 1990 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP 87 OF THE LAWS OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES REVISED EDITION 1990 BETWEEN: STEVEN STEEL SUPPLY Judgment Creditor AND DINO TRADIN(; AND SERVICES PTI( LIMITED DORA SONG CHOO KAM also called DORA PROCHILO .Joined pursuant to order 4?f Court made on August J997 Judgment Dehtor INTERPLEADER SUMMONS CLAIMANT – ASHFORD COLE Appearances: Mr. Joseph Delves for Claimant Ms. Nicole Sylvester and Ms. Rochelle Forde for Judgment Creditor 2003. March 20 2003: April 10.2003 RULING [II BRlICE-L YLE, .J: A Summons It)r Interpleader relief calls upon the Claimants to appear and state the nature and particulars of their respective claims. In both stakeholders and sheriffs Interpleaders the Claimant should swear and tile an affidavit setting out in detail what he claims and the grounds upon which his ,­ . ” .” claim is based with such precision as to enable the opposing Claimant or the Execution Creditor to decide whether to oppose it and so that the Court may make an appropriate order. [2J The affidavit should exhibit or contain a list of the goods claimed, or otherwise describe them, so that the parties know exactly what is being claimed.

[3]The Court then has these alternatives at its disposal (a) dismissal ofthe appbication (b) a summary determination ofthe merits of the claim (c) a reference of the matter to the judge (d) remission of the proceedings to the County Court (e) a reference of the dispute ft.)r arhitration (f) a reference of the matter to an official reference (g) the substitution or addition or the Claimant as proceedings already begull (h) an order that an issue he slated and tried Del’endant to [4 j These alternatives mentioned above are resorted to only after the Court has considered that there is a dispute between them. however nebulolls. to try: and also that (a) a sutl1ciently detailed aflidavit has been supplied by the Claimant (b) whether the Court should direct the sheriff to provide an inventory (c) the discovery of documents [51 The Civil Procedure Rules :2000 at Part 54.2 provides that there can only he a summary determination of the issues by consent ofthe parties. There has heen no such consent indicated hy the Claimant’s Learned Counsel despite the fact that I ,earned Counsel for the Execution Creditor seems to be bowling in that direction. In that regard I rule that if this matter is to proceed any further. it should do so on the determination of the issues or any of the other alternatives atl)remenlioneu. ‘} f

[6]The main questions I think necessary to determine at this stage is whether in the Claimant’s affidavit supporting his claim, detailed and precise information which I can consider sufficient, has been provided to enable the Execution Creditor. a clear view of the issues involved, and whether an absence of such detailed and precise information vitiates the Claimanfs case or claim.

[7]A glance at the affidavit of Ashford Cole the Claimant in this matter, reveals a general statement of the items he :c1aims as “goods and chattels seized by the Sheriff of the High Court under a writ of fieri facias in this action. and referred to in the summons filed on 6th August 2002 … ” /8/ The summons tiled on 6th August 200~ clearly describes the said goods and chattels as “one (1) Isuzu Rodeo recreational vehicle bearing licensed ll11mher Pi\ 868 and one (1) factory building shell. structure. and related scrar melal ami machinery situate at Mount Bentick.” Desrite the absence of a clear definition or these goods and chattels in the Claimant’s affidavit they are adequately. to my , mind. described in as much detail as rossihle in the summons to gi\ L’ lh.’ Execution Creditor a clear idea as to what the Claimant is laying claim to, 191 J therefore do not agree with that limb of Learned Counsel for the Execution Creditor’s arguments. and rule against that position. as I am convinced that the affidavit of the Claimant as it stands does not vitiate the Claimant’s claim. and cannot therefore invite the Court to dismiss the claim outright. [IOJ Paragraph two of the Claimant’s affidavit also gives an outline of the basis for the Claimanfs claim. and is supported by one document – a receipt Exhibit A.C 1. This clearly raises issues that can only be determined at trial issues of fact and law. The supposed deficiency of the receipt. raised by learned Counsel for the I :xecution Creditor is not an issue appropriately determined at this stage. There are issues to be tried, and at this stage that is my only concern. [I t] Having thus determined, I rule that this matter proceed to trial on the issues raised by the Claimant and those by the l:xecution Creditor. with the Claimant Mr. Ashford Cole as the defendant, and the Execution Creditor Steven Steel Supply as the Claimant, costs to the Claimant to be agreed or assessed. Matter is adjourned to the June 2003 Civil list for trial. HIGH COURT JUDGE