Chamber Hearing – 23rd April 2024

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEAL CHAMBER HEARING rd April 2024 MATTERS DEALT WITH ON PAPER Before: The Hon. Mde. Margaret Price Findlay, Justice of Appeal Case Name: BOI Bank Corporation v Jose Rafael Padron Salazar [ANUHCVAP2023/0039] Antigua and Barbuda Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Appellant/Respondent: Mr. Craig L. Jacas Respondent/Applicant: Dr. David Dorsett Issues: Application for security for costs Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.The appellant/respondent shall provide security for the respondent/applicant’s costs in the sum of two-thirds the costs incurred at the High Court to be paid within 14 days of this order.

2.There is no order as to costs in the application. Reason: The Court upon having regard to such principles as those pronounced in Ultramarine (Antigua) Ltd v Sunsail (Antigua) Ltd ANUHCVAP2017/0004 (delivered 7 th April 2017, unreported), that if appellant/respondent has not furnished to the Court any cogent evidence of their means, so as to satisfy the court, not to a standard of certainty, but at least to a standard of probability, that the claim would be stifled if security was ordered and upon the Court taking the view that the respondent has satisfied rule 62.21(2) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023, by virtue of its letter to the appellant/respondent’s attorney dated 14 th February 2023 wherein a prior request was made for security for costs, the Court was minded to grant the applicant’s application. Case Name: Gaston Browne v Lena Philip [ANUHCVAP2024/0012] Antigua and Barbuda Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Ms. Rose-Mary Reynolds Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Leave to appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Leave to appeal against the decision of Michel M is granted. The appellant shall file the notice of appeal within 21 days of the date hereof in accordance with rule 62.6(1)(b) of the CPR. Reason: The Court upon considering the principles on leave to appeal elucidated in Othneil Sylvester v Faelleseje, A Danish Foundation Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2005 (delivered 20 th February 2006, unreported) and rule 62.2 8(a) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023 (“the CPR”) was of the view that the appellant has shown that the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success. Case Name: 1. Natasha Beharry 2. Belinda Bishop v Gren-Mac Construction Inc (formally BEQ-MAC(Grenada) (Inc) [GDAHCVAP2022/0025] Grenada Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April, 2024 On paper: Applicant: Ms. Marion Suite Respondent: Mr. Deloni Edwards Issues: Application for stay of execution Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for a stay of execution filed by the appellants on 1 st March 2024 is dismissed. Reason: The Court upon the principles enunciated in C-Mobile Services Limited v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd BVIHCMAP2014/0017 (delivered 2 nd October 2014, unreported) and that there is no automatic right to a stay pending appeal as a successful litigant should not normally be denied of the fruits of its success pending appeal except in exceptional circumstances and that this was the second application for a stay made by the appellants and that the first application was dismissed by Actie J on 14 th December 2023, was of the view that the appellants have not provided cogent evidence that the appeal will be stifled or rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted and that in all the circumstances, the respondent should not be deprived of the fruits of its judgment. Case Name: Juliette Joy Shears v Kenneth Shears [GDAHCVAP2024/0005] Grenada Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Mr. Ruggles Ferguson K.C Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant on 11 th March 2024 is granted. The applicant shall file the notice of appeal within 21 days of this order. Reason: The Court upon considering rule 62.2(8)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023 which states that leave to appeal may only be given where (a) the court considers that the appeal would have a realistic prospect of success; or (b) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard was satisfied that the applicant has met the threshold for leave to appeal in that the proposed appeal has a realistic prospect of success. Case Name: Christopher Brathwaite v The King [GDAHCRAP2024/0006] Grenada Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is granted. The notice of application filed by the applicant on 13 th March 2024 is deemed to be the notice of appeal. The Registrar of the High Court shall serve a copy of this order on the applicant and the Director of Public Prosecutions within 14 days of the date of this order and shall provide proof of service thereafter. Reason: The Court, was satisfied that leave to appeal against conviction and sentence should be granted and having regard to rule 55 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Court of Appeal Rules, the Court consequently deemed the leave to appeal application as the notice of appeal. Case Name: Christon Balboza v The King [GDAHCRAP2024/0005] Grenada Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Leave to appeal against sentence Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. 2. The notice of application filed by the applicant on 13 th March 2024 is deemed to be the notice of appeal.

3.The Registrar of the High Court shall serve a copy of this order on the applicant and the Director of Public Prosecutions within 14 days of the date of this order and shall provide proof of service thereafter. Reason: The Court upon considering rule 62.2(8)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023 which states that leave to appeal may only be given where (a) the court considers that the appeal would have a realistic prospect of success; or (b) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard was of the view that the applicant has met the threshold for the grant of leave to appeal. Case Name: Alden Joseph v The King [GDAHCRAP2024/0004] Grenada Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for extension of time for leave to appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application filed on 5 th March 2024 for an extension of the time within which to appeal is refused. 2. The application filed on 5 th March 2024 for leave to appeal accordingly falls away and stands dismissed. Reason: The Court upon noting that the application for leave to appeal was out of time by over 5 months and being cognisant of the principles enunciated in Carleen Pemberton v Mark Brantley [2011] ECSCJ No. 229 and was of the view that the reasons for the delay are not satisfactory and that the proposed appeal does not contain a realistic prospect of success such that this Court should exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal. Case Name: Maudell Weekes v The Commissioner of Police [MNIMCRAP2024/0001] Montserrat Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: Ms. Renee Morgan Issues: Application for extension of time within which to appeal – Relief from sanctions – Leave to appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application filed on 25 th January 2024 is refused. Reason: The Court noted that the applicant had sought to exercise his right to appeal under section 108 of the Act almost a year out of time and that the applicant had not furnished to the Court any good and cogent reason which would justify the inordinate delay and in the circumstances the Court will exercise its discretion to refuse the application and as such made the above orders. Case Name: 1. Heritage Plantation Condominiums Limited 2. Heritage Plantation Inc. 3. Mervin Grant v Doche & Doche Inc [SKBHCVAP2024/0002] Saint Christopher and Nevis Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Dr. Henry LOS Browne KC Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for a stay of execution Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for a stay of execution of the judgment of Gill J pending the hearing and determination of the appeal is granted. Reason: The Court upon considering the principles governing the grant of a stay of execution elucidated in C-Mobile Services Ltd. v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. BVIHCMAP2014/0017 (delivered 2 nd October 2014, unreported), and was of the view that having regard to the nature of the order of Gill J, there is a real possibility of the applicant’s appeal being stifled, if the stay of execution was not granted, the Court granted the above orders. Case Name: Bank of Nevis International Limited v Selecta Insurance and Reinsurance Company (Caribbean) Limited [NEVHCVAP2023/0017] Saint Christopher and Nevis Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Ms. Kalisia Marks Respondent: Ms. Edisha Greene Issues: Application for extension of time Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The notice of appeal filed on 9 th February 2024 and the appellant’s written submissions with list of authorities filed on 22 nd February 2024 are deemed properly filed. The extension of time application is granted. The respondent’s notice of opposition and written submissions with bundle of authorities, both filed on 7 th March 2024 are deemed properly filed. There is no order as to costs. Reason: The Court was of the view that the applicant had satisfied the threshold for the grant of an extension of time, especially having regard to – (i) the short length of the delay considering the abovementioned rules 62.13(3)and 5; (ii) the reasons proffered for the delay; and (iii) that there would be no prejudice to the appellant if the extension of time was granted. Case Name: Abkim Bryan v The Director of Public Prosecutions [SKBHCRAP2024/0001] Saint Christopher and Nevis Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: Mr. Leslie Roberts Issues: Application for legal aid – Leave to appeal against sentence Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. The said application for leave to appeal is deemed to be the notice of appeal. The registrar shall serve a copy of this order on the parties within 7 days of the date of this order and provide proof of service thereafter. Reason: The Court was of the view that the application for leave had a realistic prospect of success and the applicant had thus met the threshold for the grant of leave to appeal. Case Name: Ira Maynard v The Director of Public Prosecutions [SKBHCRAP2023/0013] Saint Christopher and Nevis Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for leave to appeal against sentence Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence shall be set down for hearing before the Full Court on a date to be fixed by the Chief Registrar. 2. The registrar shall serve a copy of this order on the parties within 7 days of the date of this order and provide proof of service thereafter. Reason: The Court was minded to refuse the application and as such, directed that an oral hearing be fixed. Case Name: 1. SKN Choice Times Limited 2. Dwight Cozier v Josephine Huggins [SKBHCVAP2024/0004] Saint Christopher and Nevis Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Ms. Angela Cozier Respondent: Mr. Anthony Gonsalves KC and Ms. Chauntelle Hobson Issues: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for leave to appeal shall be set down for hearing before the Full Court on a date to be fixed by the Chief Registrar. Reason: The Court upon considering the principles on leave to appeal elucidated in Othneil Sylvester v Faelleseje, A Danish Foundation Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2005 (delivered 20 th February 2006, unreported) was minded to refuse the application for leave to appeal, having regard to the background of the matter and the contentions of the applicant. Case Name: Bank of Nevis International Limited v 1. Sheila Hobbs 2. Adam Hobbs [NEVHCVAP2024/0002] Saint Christopher and Nevis Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Ms. Kalisia Marks Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Stay Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application filed on 21 st March 2024 shall be set down for an oral inter partes hearing before the Full Court (“the oral hearing”) on a date to be fixed by the Chief Registrar. 2. The orders of Thompson J made on 18 th March 2024 are hereby stayed pending the determination of the oral hearing. Reason: The Court upon considering the principles governing the grant of a stay of execution elucidated in C-Mobile Services Ltd. v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. BVIHCMAP2014/0017 (delivered 2 nd October 2014, unreported and weighing the contentions of the parties, was minded to direct that an oral hearing be fixed in accordance with rule 62.7(7) of the Eastern Caribbean Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023 for a full ventilation of the application. Case Name: Antonio Alexander v The King [SLUHCRAP2024/0002] Saint Lucia Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is granted. 2. The application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is granted. 3. The notice of application filed on 6 th February 2024 is deemed to be the notice of appeal. Reasons: The Court was of the view that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal. Case Name: 1. Gertha Belmar 2. Mary Laypet Belmar-Clarke 3. Veronique Belmar v The Attorney General of Saint Lucia [SLUHCVAP2024/0006] Saint Lucia Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: Ms. Anna-Alicia Fagan Respondent: Rochelle John-Charles Issues: Application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal is refused. Reason: The Court considered the factors on which an extension of time is granted which are: the length of the delay; the reasons for delay; the chances of the appeal succeeding if the extension is granted; and the degree of prejudice if the application was granted and was minded to refuse the application. Case name: 1. Michelle Fife 2. Bansyl Kennedy v Marvin Mulcare [SVGHCVAP2019/0008] Consolidated with: [SVGHCVAP2019/0009] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Ms. Kay Bacchus-Baptiste Respondent: Ms. Suzanne Commissiong Issues: Application for extension of time Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: 1. The application filed on 18 th January 2024 for an extension of time to file the appeal bundle is granted. 2. The appellants shall file and serve the appeal bundle within 14 days of the date of this order. Reason: The Court upon considering rule 26.1(k) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 which enables the Court to extend the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction, order or direction of the court even if the application for an extension is made after the time for compliance has passed and the reasons for the delay and the difficulties encountered by the appellants in obtaining the transcript of the proceedings in the court below was of the view that the respondent is unlikely to be prejudiced by the grant of an extension of time and that such extension of time was necessary in all the circumstances to progress the appeal. Case Name: Arion May v The King [SVGHCRAP2024/0007] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is granted. 2. The notice of application filed by the applicant on 13 th March 2024 is deemed to be the notice of appeal. 3. The Registrar of the High Court shall serve a copy of this order on the applicant and the Director of Public Prosecutions within 14 days of the date of this order and shall provide proof of service thereafter. Reasons: The Court was of the view that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal. Case Name: Kawanie Williams v The King [SVGHCRAP2021/0005] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On paper: Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for bail pending appeal Result / Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The application for bail pending appeal is adjourned to the next Chamber Hearing of this Court scheduled for 28 th May 2024. Reason: The Court noted that the application had not been served on the Director of Public Prosecutions. Case name: Mikhail Thomas v The King [SVGHCRAP2024/0003] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: In Person Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for extension of time within which to appeal Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The application filed on 5 th February 2024 for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused. Reason: The Court was of the view that no cogent reasons were given for the delay and that the proposed appeal did not have a realistic prospect of success such that an extension of time would be granted. Case name: Golden Meditech Stem Cells (BVI) Company Limited v 1. Blue Ocean Creation Investment Hong Kong Limited 2. Blue Ocean Structure Investment Company Ltd [BVIHCMAP2023/0022] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Mr. John Carrington Respondent: Mr. Richard Baird Issues: Application for extension of time to file and serve reply submissions Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The application filed by the appellants on 20 th March 2024 for an extension of time to file its reply submissions is granted. The reply submissions filed by the appellant on 15 th April 2024 are deemed properly filed. Reason: The Court considered rule 26.1(k) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 which enables the Court to extend the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction, order or direction of the court even if the application for an extension is made after the time for compliance has passed and was of the view that the grant of an extension of time is necessary in all the circumstances to progress the appeal. Case name: Antonio Stoutt v The Commissioner of Police [BVIMCRAP2015/0006] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Mr. David Penn Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application to amend grounds Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The appellant shall provide to the Court a copy of the notice of appeal filed on 6 th July 2015, within 14 days of this order. The application to amend the grounds of appeal is adjourned for consideration at the next Chamber Hearing of this Court scheduled for 28 th May 2024. Reason: The Court noted that a copy of the notice of appeal filed on 6 th July 2015 did not accompany either the notice of application or the amended notice of application to amend the grounds of appeal. Case name: Charlotte Brodie v Henry Brodie [BVIHCVAP2024/0006] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Ms. Marie-Lou Creque Respondent: Ms. Asha Johnson Willins Issues: Application for stay pending determination of appeal Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The application for a stay of execution of the decision of Young J dated 17 th January 2024 is set down for hearing before the Full Court at the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Territory of the Virgin Islands scheduled for the week commencing 20 th May 2024. Reason: The Court upon considering the principles on which a stay is granted, was of the view that the matter should be set down for hearing. Case name: David Straker v COP [BVIMCRAP2021/0003] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Mr. Thornton Smith Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for bail Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The application for bail pending appeal is refused. Reason: The Court noted that the application filed in BVIMCRAP2021/0003 was a duplication of the application filed in BVIMCRAP2020/0006 and was of the view that application filed in BVIMCRAP2021/0003 was therefore moot. Case name: Job Trumpet v Kenny Francis [BVIHCVAP2024/0007] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Ms. Marie-Lou Creque Respondent: Mr. Ricardo Madden Issues: Application for a stay of proceedings Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The application for a stay of proceedings in BVIHCV2023/0246 is refused. Reason: The Court noted that the applicant had not sought leave and had not obtained leave to appeal from this Court and was of the view that no appeal was therefore before this Court and the applicant’s notice of appeal and amended notice of interlocutory appeal were nullities. Case name: Victorija Fetaimia v 1. Albert Court 2. Dondore Incorporated (In Liquidation) [BVIHCMAP2020/0018] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: In Person Respondent: Mr. Jonathan Addo Issues: Application for disclosure of documents Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: The “application” filed by the appellant on 2 nd April 2024 is refused in its entirety. Reason: The Court upon considering the principles on which a stay is granted, was of the view that the appellant’s application should be refused. Case name: 1. Russell Crumpler 2. Christopher Farmer (As Joint Liquidators of Three Arrows Capital Ltd (In Liquidation) v Three Arrows Capital Limited (in Liquidation) [BVIHCMAP2023/0018 ] Territory of the Virgin Islands Date: Tuesday, 23 rd April 2024 On Paper Applicant: Mr. Grant Carroll Respondent: No Appearance Issues: Application for adjournment Result/Order: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT: 1. The First Affidavit of Craig Farmer, including the exhibit to the same, which has been filed in support of the application, shall be sealed. 2. The matter is adjourned to the next Sitting of the Court of Appeal for the Territory of the Virgin Islands scheduled for the week commencing 28 th October 2024. Reason: The Court upon considering sections 6 and 7 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme (Virgin Islands) Act was satisfied that the First Affidavit of Craig Johnson (and exhibit thereto) should be sealed.