GREGORY EDWARDS v ST. LUCIA ELECTRICITY SERVICES LIMITED
- Collection
- High Court
- Country
- Saint Lucia
- Case number
- Judge
- Key terms
- Upstream post
- 9203
- AKN IRI
- /akn/ecsc/lc/hc/1999/judgment/gregory-edwards-v-st-lucia-electricity-services-limited/post-9203
-
9203-03.03.99gregoryedwardsvstluciaelectricityserviceslimited.pdf current 2026-06-21 03:21:18.447441+00 · 49,551 B
SAINT LUCIA: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Civil) No: 654 of 1997 Between: GREGORY EDWARDS Plaintiff .v ST. LUCIA ELECTRICITY SERVICES ;_IMITED Defendant ~1Jances: Mr. i<enneth Foster for the Plaintiff Anthony McNamara for the Defendant 1999: Feb. 17; March 03 .. DECISION ALLEN J. In this matter the Plaintiff is seeking leave of the Court to amend a summons pursuant to Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme t£,SIWNtY the Defendant is .vlsitil IQ the application. It is the duty of the Court to look carefully at a late stage application under this rule, to ensure especially whether:
1.The application is being made in good faith.
2.The amendment can be made without injustice to the other side. It was necessary therefore to peruse the Court records and to understand the background and history of the matter and then look at the defence which is being raised by the Defendant. My own view on the defence is that if it, is a good one it would still be valid it tne amendment here sought is allowed and may not even need to br; amended Again, the Court could not resist the observation that this amendment not absolutely necessary; if the Plaintiff were to succeed on the writ as It now stands the Defendant rT1ight well be willing to settle all similar claims arising out of the same cause of action between themselves and the Plaintiff, thereby aVOiding unnecessary costs.
Suit No. 694 of 1997 Allen, J Delivered: 03/03/99
PDF extraction
SAINT LUCIA: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Civil) No: 654 of 1997 Between: GREGORY EDWARDS Plaintiff .v ST. LUCIA ELECTRICITY SERVICES ;_IMITED Defendant ~1Jances: Mr. i<enneth Foster for the Plaintiff Anthony McNamara for the Defendant 1999: Feb. 17; March 03 .. DECISION ALLEN J. In this matter the Plaintiff is seeking leave of the Court to amend a summons pursuant to Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme t£,SIWNtY the Defendant is .vlsitil IQ the application. It is the duty of the Court to look carefully at a late stage application under this rule, to ensure especially whether:
1.The application is being made in good faith.
2.The amendment can be made without injustice to the other side. It was necessary therefore to peruse the Court records and to understand the background and history of the matter and then look at the defence which is being raised by the Defendant. My own view on the defence is that if it, is a good one it would still be valid it tne amendment here sought is allowed and may not even need to br; amended Again, the Court could not resist the observation that this amendment not absolutely necessary; if the Plaintiff were to succeed on the writ as It now stands the Defendant rT1ight well be willing to settle all similar claims arising out of the same cause of action between themselves and the Plaintiff, thereby aVOiding unnecessary costs.
WordPress
Suit No: 694 of 1997 ALLEN J. Delivered: 03/03/99
| Run | Started | Status | Method | Paragraphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18129 | 2026-06-21 18:02:34.353167+00 | ok | pymupdf_layout_text | 3 |
| 8791 | 2026-06-21 08:21:26.625948+00 | ok | pymupdf_text | 2 |