Daniel Dubissette v Grenada Cooperative Bank Ltd

Daniel Dubissette v Grenada Cooperative Bank Ltd agreement between appellant and respondent – Monthly in letter agreement Application summary learned judge erred in granting the respondent summary judgment on summary judgment made by appel/ant appellant made an application to the court for summary judgment pursuant to Part 15 Civil Procedure Rules 2000. This application was filed with supporting affidavit respondent filed a response to the appellant’s application, but no affidavit in learned judge refused the appellant summary judgment, dismissed his granted the respondent summary judgment. The appellant appealed the judge’s decision. Held: allowing the appeal and reinstating the appellant’s claim, referring the matter to the High Court for case management and for hearing before a new judge, and awarding costs to the appellant, that: Dubissette agreement with money. letter was prepared by the Bank. The date agreement was 28th December 999. The loan was for a sum of $264,000.00. be at the rate 11 The loan was to be serviced of interest of $1,688.74 for a period of 25 years. A mortgage document was prepared by the Bank and executed by Mr. Dubissette on 6th February 2000. The mortgage specified the sum loaned to be 1 The claimant the court below. 2 The defendant in the court below. application leave defence of application was opposed by Mr. Dubissette. Leave was granted by the Bank duly its defence. In defence, the Bank claimed that Dubissette relied on was an error on the part of the Bank, and the Bank had deducted the correct sum from his account monthly to service the commencement of the loan repayment. May 2008, Mr. Dubissette filed an application for summary judgment pursuant CPR Part 15. In his supporting affidavit Mr. Dubissette deposed that: monthly repayment was being deducted automatically from a chequing account held by me at the Defendant Bank and I was not supplied with monthly statements of the status of the said chequing account.” 3 judgment made by Mr. intention Bank Mr. Dubissette submits that the court had before it no Bank the purpose of hearing any application by no option to find that he had no notice of the deductions account since that was the evidence in his affidavit. His claim had been wrongfully dismissed without giving him an opportunity to reply to the Bank’s defence. judge was wrong to have relied on the averments in the pleadings the purposes of the summary judgment application. In any event, the Bank had made no application for summary judgment in its favour. The judge had decided to strike out his claim on its own initiative without giving him any opportunity to make representations either orally or in writing. The judge ought instead, if he 4 likely judge was entitled take below Mr. Dubissette’s claim without an application court gave Mr. Dubissette was proposing make such an order, and giving him an opportunity to respond. order appears to come out of the blue. From the absence any explanation from the learned trial judge as to why she was taking step in the absence of any application and without giving him the notice, it would appear that the decision was no more than a slip based on a momentary misapprehension that it was indeed the Bank which had applied in proper form for summary judgment. The order is worded as if it was made on the Bank’s application. In the circumstances, in my view, Mr. Dubissette’s claim ought to be reinstated. But, if I am to order this to happen, 5 6 Don Mitchell Appeal