BRENDA EDWDl v THE SAINT LUCIA BANANA GROWERS ASSOCIATION et al

#001 SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 48 7 of 1994 BETWEEN: BRENDA EDWDl (1 t Plaintiff and ~ t <: \.. e 1 . THE SAINT LUCIA BANANA GROWERS ASSOCIATION

2.H.V. ATKINSON

3.CALIXTE GEORGE

4.DAVID DeMACQUE

5.GEOFF DEVAUX

6.RICHARD PETERKIN

7.MICHAEL JOSEPH

8.OCTAVE FEVRIERE

9.CYRUS REYNOLDS Defendants -; r c t Mr. D. Theodore for Plaintiff Mr. H. Deterville for Defendants 1995: 1996: Decemher 4; January 10. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . -.::b> On July 6, 1994 the Plaintiff filed a writ of summons indorsed with statement of claim seeking damages for libel and presumably V\ CA o (" wrongful dismissal against t he Defendants. The Defendant s entered {-i t appearance between July 15 and 18 of 1994 . They al so file d :D ~ I defences between November 28 and December 2, 1 994. H ° 1 These proceedings pertain t o Defendants 5 and 6 only who were ~ . ~ nit ially represented by another solicitor. On March 20 , 1995 the Plaintiff t ook out a summons requesting particulars of the defence o f Defendants 5 and 6 . The said Defendants f i l e d a response t o the said particulars in which they C basically stated that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the t particulars requested but in a further response fi led on October f l , 1995 Defendants supplied parti ars of t statements of t on which their defence of fa comment was the hearing, both 1 Counsel ssions on different paragraphs of the pleadings can earned from notes of evidence. I 1 be content to state ne.lOW my conclusions only in the erest of brevi Both Counsel correct referred to the function of iculars as contained in the Supreme Court Practice of the as found at paragraph 18/12/2 of the 1979 edit I I d state them below. They are as follows: "Function of Particulars. - This Rule s on t ies a primary obligation to state in the all the 'necessary particulars' any claim, defence or other matter pleaded, and if any pleading does not state such particu.lars or states only some or insufficient or e i ars f the e ~nables t Court to r a to serve i (1) particulars or and better i ar..3 of any claim, defence or other matter f or a statement of the nature of the case relied on, or both such iculars and statement. It is an essenti e system of pleading that iculars should of material legation contained in the The function of iculars is to carry ration t overriding principle that litigation tween ies, and particularly the t 1, should be conduct fai and without surprises and idental to reduce costs cited with a~rroval by Edmund Davies L.J. Ast s a Naviera S.A. v. Linard (1972) 2 Q.B. 611; 1972) 2 W.L.R. 1414 at p. 1421. This function has been stated various ways as follows: to inform the other side of the nature of the case have to meet as distinguished from the mode in ch case is to per ey, L.J., v. Wisden (1897), 77 L. T. 67; per eYr L.J. & Co. v. Scot ish Union Co. (1907 , 24 T.L.R. 3 I Aga Khan v. Times Publishing Co., 1Ki (2) to prevent the other side from ing t se at the trial (per Cotton, L.J., in F t ('888\, 38 Ch. D. at p. 413; Thomson v. Bi ey 1882 / , 31 W.R. 230); (3) to enable the other side to know what to be prepared with and to al (per Cotton, L.J. ibid.; per Jessel, M.R., (1876), 3 ch. D. 637; on v. Assoc for the Protection of Trade (1911), 27 T.L.R. 32 , 33 4) to limit i the pl per L.J., Saunders v. Jones (1877), 7 . D. 435 or of claim or the (Mi v. 376, 385); (5) to 1 t f ~s8ues to t as to whicr. discovery is requi re Assurance Co. v. lbert 2 Q.B. 148; per Williams, L.J., in Milbank v. Milbank, 1 Ch. 376,385); (6 ) to tie the hands of the party so cannot leave go into any matters not per Brett, L.J., v. J:lhllipps (1878), 4 Q.B.D. 127, 133' Broad, (1892) 2 Q. B. 317 , see n. II All Woolley v. material facts" to r. 7, supra; and ley (1892) 2 Q.B. 317). But if the opponent ts to ask for particulars, evidence may be given whi s any material allegation in the pleadings (Dean of ster v. Smelting Corp., (1902) W.N. 5; Hewson v. Cleeve, (1904) 2 Ir. R. 536).1t But it is the application of those functions which present some fficulty in a given case.

CONCLUSIONS

1.The Plaintiff asked for particulars of: (a) the said appointment; (b) the said qualified lege; and (c) the said ions. At the hearing learned Counsel for a iff seems t ained satisfaction th what 1 Counse t De s provided so this issue s not re an r. But I d thought it to be that t appo respect of which particulars were red were t e f t in paragraph 3 of PIa iff's statement of c a I would so have found that there was no need for i ars of if lege whi were ficient a in of the fence. The PIa iff asked for iculars of: (a) the s duty; and (b) the said relevant matters. re t of Counsel seems to abandoned the part ars duty but in my view this duty was ficient conta ained in the particulars of the of qualified privi ege mentioned above. think to ask particulars of relevant matters is an abuse of ss of the Court I wi Defendants that no particulars ought to ied. Under paragraph 8(c) of the defence The Plaintiff asked particulars of: (a) the said sense of duty; and the said honest belief. seems to have abandoned the particulars re ct of st belief. I think in both cases the requests are an f t process of the Court and are rightly withhe Under fence The PI iff parti ars of: a) the said common interest; b) the s d corre interest; c) the sa.id social d) the s duty; (e) the f'3.id I duty. think t s is harassment. I do not t is ne or i ars or anat any of t se terms al of were to expl and icul se defence f f ed lege. a iff iculars of facts O~l defence fair comment was based. I agree, t s t te law, that s s a rement if de of fair comment is to be entert The Defendants refused at first to supply the parti ars but whet were or wrong to have maintained this stance does not I for iry s and using t terminology of e Counse Plaintiff, they had a "change of ied later. The aintiff asked particulars of: (a) t said assessment; (b) the said compelling reality; (c) the said massive financial fai (d) the said top management and financial the said allegation t top were ld accountable. The assessment referred to is cl t one ref to paragraph 5 of the statement of claim as contained in t the Banana Review Committee. I am not sure what is the compelling i referred to r hink the Plaintiff is entitled to the i ars st s hat head ~it~in twenty-one days failing ch t e struck out. think too that the aintiff is ent led to know her is al ncluded in the terms "top management" or " management" and these particulars are 1 se ordered t ied within twenty-one days ling whi reference t those erms shall be ordered to be struck out. However, I do not think particulars are ired of the massive financial failure" or of ion management were held account ~ as these to flndlngs f the Committee and are properly the subject f sclosure of documents. Under paragraph lO(b) of the defence The Plaintiff requested particulars of: (a) the said internal documents; and (b) of the allegation that Board of rectors had concerned with performance f the Account Department. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff conceded that f the documents that would answer the alJ.egat that the Board had been concerned with the performance of the Account not think there is need for particulars of t internal documents. At paragraph lO(b) of the defence the Defendants ead that there was evidence from internal documents that the for some time been concerned with the performance of the Account Department. I am of t ew t this is a r ect sclosure of documents and the request is re Pia iff for i ars of: a) the said compla s; and (b) the said re thp Pia iff. my judgment paragraph lO(c of the fence sufficient a whom the complaints were made the Pia iff r or not she responded to further ormat should be directed to sclosure. Under paragraph lO(d) of the defence The Plaintiff asked iculars the said es of directors' meetings, management letters, ext audit and internal audit are the documents ch the De s al t to come to the conclusion that the words their mentioned ragraph 5 of the statement of cia are true in tance act. It seems to me Pia iff f S real concern s to the documents sc and these s are not properly the ect of i ars. As I indicated earlier se proceedings have been long and t ous for the most part were unnecessary. There shall be no r as to costs.

A.N.J. Matthew

Puisne Judge

Suit No. 487 of 1994 Matthew, J Delivered: 10/01/96