WILLIAM JOSEPH POPO v VERNON PAUL

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 153 of 1996 BETWEEN: WILLIAM JOSEPH POPO as Personal Representative of EVANIE POPO alntiff and

1.VERNON PAUL

2.FRANCIS PAUL

3.LAWRENCE PAUL Defendants ss C. Hinkson for Plaintiff Defendants In Person 1996: April 24;

May

8.JUDGMENT MATTHEW J. (In Chambers). On February 15, 1996 the Plaintiff filed a writ of summons with statement of claim in which he alleged that is Personal Representative of s deceased mother, Evanie Popo, who was the registered owner of a portion of land, parcel No. 1247B 45, in Registration Quarter of Castries. He alleged that in or about November 1995 the Defendants wrongful entered on that land and built a galvanized structure which they use as a garage. He alleged that on Thursday January 11, 1996 the Defendants threatened Anthony Eleuthere on that land and that Anthony had his permission to enter the land. The Plaintiff asked for damages for trespass, an order of unction and costs. On the same day the Plaintiff took out a summons asking erlocutory reI The summons was supported by affidavits the Plaintiff and euthere. In his affidavit Eleuthere complained that the Defendants threatened him by Francis putting his hands in his and tell not to put his foot on the land and one Iron using words to Vernon taking a piece of wood to strike him. Defendants were served with the interlocutory summons supporting affidavits on March 5, 1996. have not made any repl s to the affidavits and came to Court unrepresented. At the hearing Vernon had nothing to Francis Paul and Lawrence Paul stated that the garage is on ir mother's land. Lawrence Paul said he did not know if the Plaintiff has land but knows that he lives on land close to his mother1s land. It seems clear to me that this is a dispute which would necessitate services of a licensed land surveyor. Although the Plaintiff may be entitled to the portion of land, parcel No. 1247B 45, he has not demonstrated to me that the galvanized structure is on portion of land. Both parties are claiming that the garage is located on their land. How can a Court determine that matter with ocnfidence by just hearing their respective views? Now this structure was built on the land about November 1995 according to the Plaintiff. He then took no objections. It was only after the dispute between Eleuthere and the Paul brothers that he instituted this action. In my judgment the real issue that needs urgent attention is the situation between Eleuthere and the s. As regards the grant of an interlocutory unction I have to the classic case of AMERICAN CYANAMID v. ETHICON LTD 1975 A.C. 3 6 and to the analysis of the principles found at 4 2 of the 'United Kingdom Supreme Court Practice 1979. I am satisfied that there is a serious question to be t the application is not frivolous or vexatious I on to consider whether the balance of convenience 1 s granting or refusing the reI f sought. In suit 187 of 1995 between BARBARA KIDDELL and WINDJAMMER CO. LTD. livered on May 31, 1995 I also considered the case of can Cyanamid and asked the question whether the Applicant established that she had an arguable claim to the right to an electric post on the land in question. I referred to: INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY 1978 1 AER SMITH v. DISTOS COMPANIA NAVIERA SA. 1979 A.C. 240 and f SISKINA v. that the Applicant had not established the right and I refused the application for an injunction. In my judgment the Plaintiff here has not established he a good arguable claim to the right he seeks to protect. I re to grant the injunction sought. But I think I should ensure there is tranquillity between Eleuthere and the Pauls. And so I order 1. That the Defendants be restrained and an order of injunct is granted restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or by their servants, or agents or otherwise from threatening, abusing, assaulting or in any way interfering with Anthony Eleuthere's use of the land until after the trial of this action or until further order. '3: ·W .::r: .f-; • f-; (J) • ,::C tn · ~ ro ;::::f • • t-:J .t-:J • (J) · . s:::: · z U) • ",-j • .;::::f • ,::C p.. U) .w U) o () o .w U) ro H (J) ro H o o s:::: (J) ..Q rl rl ro ...c:: U) (J) H (J) ...c::

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 153 of 1996 BETWEEN: WILLIAM JOSEPH POPO as Personal Representative of EVANIE POPO and

1.VERNON PAUL

2.FRANCIS PAUL

3.LAWRENCE PAUL ss C. Hinkson for Plaintiff Defendants In Person 1996: April 24; May 8. JUDGMENT MATTHEW J. (In Chambers). alntiff Defendants On February 15, 1996 the Plaintiff filed a writ of summons with statement of claim in which he alleged that is Personal Representative of s deceased mother, Evanie Popo, who was the registered owner of a portion of land, parcel No. 1247B 45, in Registration Quarter of Castries. He alleged that in or about November 1995 the Defendants wrongful entered on that land and built a galvanized structure which they use as a garage. He alleged that on Thursday January 11, 1996 the Defendants threatened Anthony Eleuthere on that land and that Anthony had his permission to enter the land. The Plaintiff asked for damages for trespass, an order of unction and costs. On the same day the Plaintiff took out a summons asking erlocutory reI The summons was supported by affidavits the Plaintiff and euthere. In his affidavit Eleuthere complained that the Defendants threatened him by Francis putting his hands in his and tell not to put his foot on the land and one Iron using words to Vernon taking a piece of wood to strike him. Defendants were served with the interlocutory summons supporting affidavits on March 5, 1996. have not made any repl s to the affidavits and came to Court unrepresented. At the hearing Vernon had nothing to Francis Paul and Lawrence Paul stated that the garage is on ir mother’s land. Lawrence Paul said he did not know if the Plaintiff has land but knows that he lives on land close to his mother1s land. It seems clear to me that this is a dispute which would necessitate services of a licensed land surveyor. Although the Plaintiff may be entitled to the portion of land, parcel No. 1247B 45, he has not demonstrated to me that the galvanized structure is on portion of land. Both parties are claiming that the garage is located on their land. How can a Court determine that matter with ocnfidence by just hearing their respective views? Now this structure was built on the land about November 1995 according to the Plaintiff. He then took no objections. It was only after the dispute between Eleuthere and the Paul brothers that he instituted this action. In my judgment the real issue that needs urgent attention is the situation between Eleuthere and the s. As regards the grant of an interlocutory unction I have to the classic case of AMERICAN CYANAMID v. ETHICON LTD 1975 A.C. 3 6 and to the analysis of the principles found at 471 4 2 of the ‘United Kingdom Supreme Court Practice 1979. I am satisfied that there is a serious question to be t the application is not frivolous or vexatious I on to consider whether the balance of convenience 1 s granting or refusing the reI f sought. In suit 187 of 1995 between BARBARA KIDDELL and WINDJAMMER CO. LTD. livered on May 31, 1995 I also considered the case of can Cyanamid and asked the question whether the Applicant established that she had an arguable claim to the right to an electric post on the land in question. I referred to: SMITH v. SISKINA v. INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY 1978 1 AER 411 DISTOS COMPANIA NAVIERA SA. 1979 A.C. 240 and f that the Applicant had not established the right and I refused the application for an injunction. In my judgment the Plaintiff here has not established a good arguable claim to the right he seeks to protect. he I re to grant the injunction sought. But I think I should ensure there is tranquillity between Eleuthere and the Pauls. And so I order

1.That the Defendants be restrained and an order of injunct is granted restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or by their servants, or agents or otherwise from threatening, abusing, assaulting or in any way interfering with Anthony Eleuthere’s use of the land until after the trial of this action or until further order. U) .w U) o () o .w U) ro H (J) ro H o o s:::: (J) ..Q rl rl ro …c:: U) (J) H (J) …c:: f-; ‘3: .·:W:r: .f-; • f-; (J) • ,::C tn · ~ ro ;::::f • • t-:J .t-:J • (J) · . s:::: · z U) • “,-j • .;::::f • ,::C p..