143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages

9th January, 2015

2015-01-09
Metadata
Collection
Digests of Decisions
Country
Case number
Judge
Key terms
Upstream post
18781
AKN IRI
/akn/ecsc/ecsc/digest/2015/digest/9th-january-2015/post-18781
PDF versions
  • 18781-teleconference20140109dca.pdf current
    2026-06-21 02:57:57.853066+00 · 78,742 B

Text

PDF: 2,021 chars / 329 words. WordPress: 2,024 chars / 331 words. Word overlap: 99.4%. Length ratio: 0.9985. Audit: normalized equal (none). Token overlap: 100.0%.

TELECONFERENCE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA Friday, 9th January 2015 APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0002] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Application for leave to withdraw notice of appeal filed on 31st January 2014 Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.Leave is granted to withdraw the notice of appeal.

2.Costs to the respondent are awarded in the sum of $750.00. Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0003] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent / Applicant: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Injunction – Application for stay of execution of order Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for a stay is refused. 2. The applicant shall pay the respondent costs in the sum of $1,000.00. Reason: The Court, having regard to the applicable principles which the Court should consider on an application for a stay of execution as was outlined in the Court’s decision in Marie Makhoul v Cicely Foster ANUHCVAP2009/0014 and in Marguerite Desir et al v Sabina James Alcide SLUHCVAP2011/0030, was not satisfied that this was an appropriate case for a grant of stay of execution of the order. The Court was not satisfied that the Estate of Ferdinand Theodore would suffer any ruination. The Estate was paid $1,569,006.00. In addition, there were other assets of the Estate including several acres of land to which the respondent is entitled to a portion. The Court was also of the view that there was no risk of injustice to the Estate if the order was complied with. Although paragraph 2 of the order dealt with personal assets of the appellant, the order also stated until further order and paragraph 4 of the order gave liberty to the parties to apply to vary the order.

TELECONFERENCE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA Friday, 9th January 2015 APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0002] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Application for leave to withdraw notice of appeal filed on 31st January 2014 Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.Leave is granted to withdraw the notice of appeal.

2.Costs to the respondent are awarded in the sum of $750.00. Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0003] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent / Applicant: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Injunction – Application for stay of execution of order Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.The application for a stay is refused.

2.The applicant shall pay the respondent costs in the sum of $1,000.00. Reason: The Court, having regard to the applicable principles which the Court should consider on an application for a stay of execution as was outlined in the Court’s decision in Marie Makhoul v Cicely Foster ANUHCVAP2009/0014 and in Marguerite Desir et al v Sabina James Alcide SLUHCVAP2011/0030, was not satisfied that this was an appropriate case for a grant of stay of execution of the order. The Court was not satisfied that the Estate of Ferdinand Theodore would suffer any ruination. The Estate was paid $1,569,006.00. In addition, there were other assets of the Estate including several acres of land to which the respondent is entitled to a portion. The Court was also of the view that there was no risk of injustice to the Estate if the order was complied with. Although paragraph 2 of the order dealt with personal assets of the appellant, the order also stated until further order and paragraph 4 of the order gave liberty to the parties to apply to vary the order.

PDF extraction

TELECONFERENCE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA Friday, 9th January 2015 APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0002] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Application for leave to withdraw notice of appeal filed on 31st January 2014 Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.Leave is granted to withdraw the notice of appeal.

2.Costs to the respondent are awarded in the sum of $750.00. Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0003] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent / Applicant: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Injunction – Application for stay of execution of order Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for a stay is refused. 2. The applicant shall pay the respondent costs in the sum of $1,000.00. Reason: The Court, having regard to the applicable principles which the Court should consider on an application for a stay of execution as was outlined in the Court’s decision in Marie Makhoul v Cicely Foster ANUHCVAP2009/0014 and in Marguerite Desir et al v Sabina James Alcide SLUHCVAP2011/0030, was not satisfied that this was an appropriate case for a grant of stay of execution of the order. The Court was not satisfied that the Estate of Ferdinand Theodore would suffer any ruination. The Estate was paid $1,569,006.00. In addition, there were other assets of the Estate including several acres of land to which the respondent is entitled to a portion. The Court was also of the view that there was no risk of injustice to the Estate if the order was complied with. Although paragraph 2 of the order dealt with personal assets of the appellant, the order also stated until further order and paragraph 4 of the order gave liberty to the parties to apply to vary the order.

WordPress

TELECONFERENCE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA Friday, 9th January 2015 APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0002] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Application for leave to withdraw notice of appeal filed on 31st January 2014 Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.Leave is granted to withdraw the notice of appeal.

2.Costs to the respondent are awarded in the sum of $750.00. Case Name: Jacqueline Theodore v Farah Jackie Theodore [DOMHCVAP2014/0003] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent / Applicant: Mr. Henry Shillingford Issues: Civil appeal – Injunction – Application for stay of execution of order Result / Order: [Oral Delivery] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.The application for a stay is refused.

2.The applicant shall pay the respondent costs in the sum of $1,000.00. Reason: The Court, having regard to the applicable principles which the Court should consider on an application for a stay of execution as was outlined in the Court’s decision in Marie Makhoul v Cicely Foster ANUHCVAP2009/0014 and in Marguerite Desir et al v Sabina James Alcide SLUHCVAP2011/0030, was not satisfied that this was an appropriate case for a grant of stay of execution of the order. The Court was not satisfied that the Estate of Ferdinand Theodore would suffer any ruination. The Estate was paid $1,569,006.00. In addition, there were other assets of the Estate including several acres of land to which the respondent is entitled to a portion. The Court was also of the view that there was no risk of injustice to the Estate if the order was complied with. Although paragraph 2 of the order dealt with personal assets of the appellant, the order also stated until further order and paragraph 4 of the order gave liberty to the parties to apply to vary the order.

Processing runs
RunStartedStatusMethodParagraphs
14377 2026-06-21 17:37:42.201325+00 ok pymupdf_layout_text 3
5034 2026-06-21 08:17:41.131774+00 ok pymupdf_text 31