JOSEPH POLEON v LOUISA POLEON et al
- Collection
- High Court
- Country
- Case number
- Judge
- Key terms
- Upstream post
- 8999
- AKN IRI
- /akn/ecsc/ecsc/hc/1996/judgment/joseph-poleon-v-louisa-poleon-et-al/post-8999
-
8999-02.10.96josephpoleonvlouisapoleonetalsuitno746of1995.pdf current 2026-06-21 03:22:14.144773+00 · 458,259 B
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No . 746 of 1995 BETWEEN: JOSEPH POLEON Plainti ff and
1.LOUISA POLEON
2.HAROLD MOSES Defendants Mrs. C. Malaykhan fo r Plaint i ff Mr. R . Frederick fo r De fendants 1996: September 25; October 2. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . On October 23, 1995 the Plaintiff filed d writ indorsed with s tatement of claim asking fo r repossession of certain lands f rom the Defendant. The writ was issued by Foster, Foster and Foster. On J anuary 25 , 1996 Charl e s Quinlan, clerk o f the solicitors, filed an affidavit to the effecc that he had served the Defendants on J anuary 24, 1996 . On May 22, 1996 the Defendant was granted leave co enter a conditional appearance and it was ordered tha t hi s a pplication to sct ~side ~ he writ s hould be served within 14 days aft er entering ~hs condit ional appearance. The conditional appearance was entered on Ma y 24, 1996 . On the Defendant' s application to set t he writ a side owing to defaul t o f Order 6 Rule 4 by the Plaintiff l earned Counse l fo r the Plaintiff s ubmit ted that the Defendant di d not comply with t he Order of the Court to serve on the aintiff the ication to set the writ aside within days entry of t appearance and he did so on June 24, :996, one er entered the conditional appearance. Counsel conceded that the writ did not cont t a iff's address J::;, •. .A ~ she submitted that it cont t. solicitor's address and so the Defendant was ::-lot prej Counsel asked for leave to .mend t writ summons. 6 Rule 4(1 a) ires that fore a writ s issued it must indorsed, where Plaintiff sues icitor, wi the aintiffs' address. There is no dispute iff has ::-lot complied with that provision. t is true the Defendant not complied th of the Court. It seems that his fai to do so d result his conditional appearance becoming uncondit unless the Cou::t orders otherwise but that would not idate the is of the t. The only issue s as to whether I should leave the amendment as requested by learned Counsel for the Pia iff or trike off the writ as advocated by learned Counsel for the Defendant. Learned Counsel for t Defendant mentioned a matter this Court indicated that was nothing to amend but d not fer to the Dart i ar ,~'" "'co> 0r circumstances. In t: t Kingdom Practice 1979 under the corresponding rule at 50, it makes provision for amendment if the address is not t or correctly stated. address of the solicitor was stated and Older 4 (2 cates hat the address for service of a Plaintiff shall ,where sues a solicitor, the business address of the solicitor indorsed on ~he writ. : shall therefore ~~ant leave to the Plaintiff to amend the t bv ~ ~ inserting the aintiff's addr~ss in order to comply th e 4 Order 6. ~n passing I notice that there also seems tG d~Eault by the laintiff in complying with Order 10 Rule 1 (4 so order that total costs be paid to the Def the sum f $250.00 inclusive of the order of costs made on May 22, 1996. my s matter shall be stayed until compliance is orders.
A. N. J. MATTHEW
Puisne
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No . 746 of 1995 BETWEEN: JOSEPH POLEON and
1.LOUISA POLEON
2.HAROLD MOSES Mrs. C. Malaykhan fo r Pl aint i ff Mr. R. Frederick fo r De fendants 1996: September 25; October 2. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . Plainti ff Defendants On October 23, 1995 the Plaintiff filed d writ indorsed with s tatement of claim asking fo r repossession of certain lands f rom the Defendant. The writ was issued by Foster, Foster and Foster. On J anuary 25 , 1996 Charl e s Quinlan, clerk o f the solicitors, filed an affidavit to the effecc that he had served the Defendants on J anuary 24, 1996 . On May 22, 1996 the Defendant was granted leave co enter a conditional appearance and it was ordered tha t hi s a pplication to sct ~side ~ he writ s hould be served within 14 days after entering ~hs condit ional appearance. The c onditional appearance was entered on May 24, 1996 . On the Defendant’ s application to se t t he writ a side owing to defaul t o f Order 6 Rule 4 by the Plaintiff l earned Counse l fo r the Plaintiff s ubmitted that the Defendant did not comply with t he Order of the Court to serve on the aintiff the ication to set the writ aside within 14 days entry of t appearance and he did so on June 24, :996, one er entered the conditional appearance. Counsel conceded that the writ did not cont t a iff’s address J::;, •. .A ~ she submitted that it cont t. solicitor’s address and so the Defendant was ::-lot prej Counsel asked for leave to .mend t writ summons. 6 Rule 4(1 a) ires that fore a writ s issued it must indorsed, where Plaintiff sues icitor, wi the aintiffs’ address. There is no dispute iff has ::-lot complied with that provision. t is true the Defendant not complied th of the Court. It seems that his fai to do so d result his conditional appearance becoming uncondit unless the Cou::t orders otherwise but that would not idate the is of the t. The only issue s as to whether I should leave the amendment as requested by learned Counsel for the Pia iff or trike off the writ as advocated by learned Counsel for the Defendant. Learned Counsel for t Defendant mentioned a matter this Court indicated that was nothing to amend but d not fer to the Dart i ar ,~'” “‘co> 0r circumstances. In t: t Kingdom Practice 1979 under the corresponding rule at 50, it makes provision for amendment if the address is not t or correctly stated. address of the solicitor was stated and Older 4 (2 cates hat the address for service of a Plaintiff shall ,where sues a solicitor, the business address of the solicitor indorsed on ~he writ. shall therefore ~~ant leave to the Plaintiff to amend the t bv ~ ~ inserting the aintiff’s addr~ss in order to comply th e 4 Order 6. ~n passing I notice that there also seems tG d~Eault by the laintiff in complying with Order 10 Rule 1 (4 so order that total costs be paid to the Def the sum f $250.00 inclusive of the order of costs made on May 22, 1996. s matter shall be stayed until compliance is orders. A. N. J. MATTHEW Puisne my
PDF extraction
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No . 746 of 1995 BETWEEN: JOSEPH POLEON Plainti ff and
1.LOUISA POLEON
2.HAROLD MOSES Defendants Mrs. C. Malaykhan fo r Plaint i ff Mr. R . Frederick fo r De fendants 1996: September 25; October 2. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . On October 23, 1995 the Plaintiff filed d writ indorsed with s tatement of claim asking fo r repossession of certain lands f rom the Defendant. The writ was issued by Foster, Foster and Foster. On J anuary 25 , 1996 Charl e s Quinlan, clerk o f the solicitors, filed an affidavit to the effecc that he had served the Defendants on J anuary 24, 1996 . On May 22, 1996 the Defendant was granted leave co enter a conditional appearance and it was ordered tha t hi s a pplication to sct ~side ~ he writ s hould be served within 14 days aft er entering ~hs condit ional appearance. The conditional appearance was entered on Ma y 24, 1996 . On the Defendant' s application to set t he writ a side owing to defaul t o f Order 6 Rule 4 by the Plaintiff l earned Counse l fo r the Plaintiff s ubmit ted that the Defendant di d not comply with t he Order of the Court to serve on the aintiff the ication to set the writ aside within days entry of t appearance and he did so on June 24, :996, one er entered the conditional appearance. Counsel conceded that the writ did not cont t a iff's address J::;, •. .A ~ she submitted that it cont t. solicitor's address and so the Defendant was ::-lot prej Counsel asked for leave to .mend t writ summons. 6 Rule 4(1 a) ires that fore a writ s issued it must indorsed, where Plaintiff sues icitor, wi the aintiffs' address. There is no dispute iff has ::-lot complied with that provision. t is true the Defendant not complied th of the Court. It seems that his fai to do so d result his conditional appearance becoming uncondit unless the Cou::t orders otherwise but that would not idate the is of the t. The only issue s as to whether I should leave the amendment as requested by learned Counsel for the Pia iff or trike off the writ as advocated by learned Counsel for the Defendant. Learned Counsel for t Defendant mentioned a matter this Court indicated that was nothing to amend but d not fer to the Dart i ar ,~'" "'co> 0r circumstances. In t: t Kingdom Practice 1979 under the corresponding rule at 50, it makes provision for amendment if the address is not t or correctly stated. address of the solicitor was stated and Older 4 (2 cates hat the address for service of a Plaintiff shall ,where sues a solicitor, the business address of the solicitor indorsed on ~he writ. : shall therefore ~~ant leave to the Plaintiff to amend the t bv ~ ~ inserting the aintiff's addr~ss in order to comply th e 4 Order 6. ~n passing I notice that there also seems tG d~Eault by the laintiff in complying with Order 10 Rule 1 (4 so order that total costs be paid to the Def the sum f $250.00 inclusive of the order of costs made on May 22, 1996. my s matter shall be stayed until compliance is orders.
A. N. J. MATTHEW
Puisne
WordPress
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No . 746 of 1995 BETWEEN: JOSEPH POLEON and
1.LOUISA POLEON
2.HAROLD MOSES Mrs. C. Malaykhan fo r Pl aint i ff Mr. R. Frederick fo r De fendants 1996: September 25; October 2. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . Plainti ff Defendants On October 23, 1995 the Plaintiff filed d writ indorsed with s tatement of claim asking fo r repossession of certain lands f rom the Defendant. The writ was issued by Foster, Foster and Foster. On J anuary 25 , 1996 Charl e s Quinlan, clerk o f the solicitors, filed an affidavit to the effecc that he had served the Defendants on J anuary 24, 1996 . On May 22, 1996 the Defendant was granted leave co enter a conditional appearance and it was ordered tha t hi s a pplication to sct ~side ~ he writ s hould be served within 14 days after entering ~hs condit ional appearance. The c onditional appearance was entered on May 24, 1996 . On the Defendant’ s application to se t t he writ a side owing to defaul t o f Order 6 Rule 4 by the Plaintiff l earned Counse l fo r the Plaintiff s ubmitted that the Defendant did not comply with t he Order of the Court to serve on the aintiff the ication to set the writ aside within 14 days entry of t appearance and he did so on June 24, :996, one er entered the conditional appearance. Counsel conceded that the writ did not cont t a iff’s address J::;, •. .A ~ she submitted that it cont t. solicitor’s address and so the Defendant was ::-lot prej Counsel asked for leave to .mend t writ summons. 6 Rule 4(1 a) ires that fore a writ s issued it must indorsed, where Plaintiff sues icitor, wi the aintiffs’ address. There is no dispute iff has ::-lot complied with that provision. t is true the Defendant not complied th of the Court. It seems that his fai to do so d result his conditional appearance becoming uncondit unless the Cou::t orders otherwise but that would not idate the is of the t. The only issue s as to whether I should leave the amendment as requested by learned Counsel for the Pia iff or trike off the writ as advocated by learned Counsel for the Defendant. Learned Counsel for t Defendant mentioned a matter this Court indicated that was nothing to amend but d not fer to the Dart i ar ,~'” “‘co> 0r circumstances. In t: t Kingdom Practice 1979 under the corresponding rule at 50, it makes provision for amendment if the address is not t or correctly stated. address of the solicitor was stated and Older 4 (2 cates hat the address for service of a Plaintiff shall ,where sues a solicitor, the business address of the solicitor indorsed on ~he writ. shall therefore ~~ant leave to the Plaintiff to amend the t bv ~ ~ inserting the aintiff’s addr~ss in order to comply th e 4 Order 6. ~n passing I notice that there also seems tG d~Eault by the laintiff in complying with Order 10 Rule 1 (4 so order that total costs be paid to the Def the sum f $250.00 inclusive of the order of costs made on May 22, 1996. s matter shall be stayed until compliance is orders. A. N. J. MATTHEW Puisne my
| Run | Started | Status | Method | Paragraphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18229 | 2026-06-21 18:03:55.783324+00 | ok | pymupdf_layout_text | 5 |
| 8892 | 2026-06-21 08:21:31.200907+00 | ok | pymupdf_text | 3 |