David Bray et al v Sunset Village Inc. et al

David Bray et al v Sunset Village Inc. et al Appearances on paper JUDGMENT MICHEL March 2013, a “notice of motion of special leave to appeal” the decision Justice Rosalyn E. Wilkinson made on 8th November 2012 was filed on behalf secured creditors of the first respondent, which is a company in liquidation. notice was filed together with an affidavit in support, in which affidavit the court was asked to grant the applicants’ application for an extension time, presumably to appeal against the decision of Wilkinson J. 3, another affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicants in support leave appeal” In this latter affidavit, the affiant avers non~ the high court) the time within which judgment of the high court in a suit in which they were not respondents to the application, having given notice of their intention oppose the application, filed written submissions in opposition on 14th May 2013. Their submissions addressed both the issue of an extension of time to appeal and the ability of the applicants to appeal the order of Wilkinson J made in proceedings which they were not parties. They also referred to article 381 of Code of Civil Procedure. is an <AU…,’,,”U undertaken by a company called Sunset Village respondent application extend can appeal against an order made on an application made to her by First Caribbean International Bank Limited, in which application Sunset Village Inc. was named as the

[11]Whatever may the merits or demerits of an application by a party to proceedings before a judge for an extension of time to appeal against the judge’s order, the fundamental issue which the present application raises is whether a person who was not a party to the proceedings can appeal against the judge’s because it is if the applicants cross that bar that the court can or should as parties had filed and such an application and it was gotten of appeal that decision. The is that the applicants have never been joined in proceedings leading to the order of Wilkinson J and they are not therefore parties the proceedings. It is also a fact that the applicants did not judgment any application to set aside or vary the order of Wilkinson J so as have given them a right of appeal against any adverse judgment. The applicants have not therefore earned for themselves the right to appeal against Wilkinson J’s order of 8th November 2012. 6] J Code of Civil Procedure. Prospere v Prospere 1 “mandates use it was never intended to stretched the words of Lord Bingham of Cornhill (who delivered Privy in Prospere v Prospere) much further than the intended them go. But this is of no moment in this appeal. the applicants have no locus standi to appeal the judgment of cannot therefore be given an extension of time to file the appeal. [1 it may well be that the door to the applicants obtaining redress from whatever injustice they consider that they might have suffered from the judgment may not necessarily be locked from them, but only that they have not positioned themselves to open it.