LEO HENRY v THE STAR (1987) PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED et al

f'...~ I~D:~ SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) Suit No. 613!lS~i LEO HENRY PLAINTIFF AND (1) THE STAR (1987) PUBLISHING COMP .. -\NY LIMITED (2) LEARIE CARASCO ALSO KNOWN AS RICKWAYNE - DEFENDANTS Mr. V A. Cooper QC for Plaintiff Mrs. C. Malaykhan for Defendants 1996: April 26th May 10th JUDGMENT (In Chambers) D'Auvergne J. a Summons supported an fidavit filed on t 13th of June 1995, the Defendants sought an r that the matter be abandoned and incapable of being was no f t in reply on file and the matter was heard in on t 26 of April, 1996. The facts of the case are as lows: On the 8th day of October, 1993 Che Pla iff filed a writ t Defendants in which he claimed damages De ion Costs. On 15th day of October, 1993 an appearance was ente on behalf of the defendants who, on 1st of November, sought an order of the Court that the Pla iff's Statement of Claim be struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that it discloses no

reasonable cause of action on 18th fil a Supplementary Affidavit in support of the applicat the 1st December, 1993 Matthew J. that t Statement of aim be amended "to state the exact words of the article re upon as libellous, within 28th days, fail which t t wil struck out. Costs of this application to t Defenda~ts to t if not agreed. the 22nd December, 1993 the iff filed an Statement of Claim and on 29th of December, 1993 order of 1st December, 1993 was ent That same was ente on the 5th of January, 1994. 4th March, 1994 the a iff filed a , Demand for Pleas March, 1994 the De s filed t ir and on the 31st day fence. On the 11th day of April 1995 the iff fil two s "Notice of Charge by New Solicitor in place of former Solicitor Request for Hearing. At the hearing Learned Counsel the De s cl t r the provisions of Order 34 Rules of the Supreme Court, the matter had been deemed al incapable of being revived on t ground that iff failed to take any proceedings or to fi any document for one year from the Defendants' defence filed 31st March, 1994 to 11 1, 1 95 and quoted the case of St. Hilaire and Baptiste v ENA Lewis Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993 St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff replied informing t Court that Order 34 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 whi no counterpart with the rules of the Supreme Court of and given much trouble to all Courts including Her Majesty's Privy

Council and there he was leaving it up to t Court to i As I have said before in Suit No. 224 of 1994 Joseph Florenville vs Damaze Sylvain and Clara St. Marthe. I am bound by is of Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean States in icular the above mentioned case of St. Hilaire v Lewl.s in S Vincent Floissac, Chief Justice notes that once de t:11 cause was caught undp.r Order 34 e 11 (1 a) t t cause or matter has to be deemed abandoned under rule. My Order is as follows That the cause or matter issue alt Order 34 e 11 1) (a and e of Costs of this application to the Defendants t to or herwise taxed. SUZIE d'AUVERGNE PUISNE JUDGE

Suit No. 613 of 1993 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 10/05/96