February 19th, 2008

Mr. Shawn Innocent CHAMBER HEARING Tuesday 19th February, 2008 CORAM The Hon. Denys Barrow, SC, Justice of Appeal SAINT LUCIA Case Name Northwest Limited v Maryanna Emmanuel [Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2007] Appearances : Appellant/ Applicant: Respondent : Mr. Horace Fraser Issue: Application for Stay of Execution Result: The Application for Stay of Execution was refused. Costs to the Respondent in the sum of $1,000. Reason: The Applicant has failed to put any evidence before the court that the Respondent would not be in a position to repay the damages awarded if the appeal succeeds. In the premises, the order must be refused. Case Name John Baptiste Mathurin et al v Rosemita Valton [Civ. App. No. 47 of 2007] Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Horace Fraser Respondent: Mr. Oswald Wilkinson Larcher Issue: Application for Stay of Execution Result: The Application for Stay of Execution was refused. Costs to the Respondent in the sum of $750. Reason: The learned Judge found that the claim was for 12,748 square feet of land, being Block 1840B, parcel 144. The judge found, based on the Appellant’s witness statement, that the Appellant was in occupation of approximately ¼ acres of land. It could not therefore be said that the Appellant had nowhere to put her two chattel houses or her animals. Case Name Ufita Francis v Ansonia L. Charless [Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2008] Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Alfred Alcide Respondent: Ms. Wauneen Louis-Harris Issue: Application for Leave to file Notice of Appeal Result: The Application for extension of time was refused. Costs to the Respondent in the sum of $1,000. Reason: The Applicant has not explained the reason for the delay. The explanation given in paragraph 11 of the Affidavit in support explains the delay in getting material (fresh evidence) from Barbados. It does not explain why there was a delay in engaging counsel and filing a Notice of Appeal. Case Name Anselma I. Augustin v Columbian Emeralds International Limited [Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008] Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Horace Fraser with Ms. Isabella Shillingford Respondent: Mr. Mark Maragh Issue:

1.Application for Leave to be granted to pursue the appeal as a summary appeal.

2.Application for Leave to adduce fresh evidence. Result: The matter was adjourned until 4th March, 2008. Reason: By agreement of the parties. CASE MANAGEMENT ANGUILLA Case Name Edwin McLaurence Hughes v La Baia Limited [Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2006] On paper: Appellant: Jenny Lindsay & Associates Respondent: Keithley Lake & Associates Issue: 1. Application for documents to be deemed to have been properly filed pursuant to Rules 62.11(1) and 62.12 (1)(3) of CPR 2000 2. Application for relief from sanctions Result: The Application was granted with no order as to costs. Reason: The Respondent does not oppose the Application. ANTIGUA & BARBUDA Commodore & Associates Case Name Eustace Gordon v Antigua & Barbuda Investment Bank [Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2004] On paper: Applicant/ Respondent: Marshall & Co. Respondent/Ap pellant: Issue: 1. Application for the Notice of Appeal to be dismissed 2. Application for the Stay of Execution to be set aside

3.Costs Result: The Application was refused. Reason: The Applicant requested that the appeal filed on 26th March 2004 be dismissed because the Appellant had taken no further step. There was no statement that the condition for taking any further step had occurred, viz, notice that the Thomas John & Co. transcript is ready. Case Name Abraham Zion v Graham Ferguson Lacey and Seashell Reefs Limited [Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2007] On paper: Applicant/ 1st Respondent: Hill & Hill Respondent/ Appellant: Issue: Application to strike out Notice of Appeal Result: The Application to strike out the Notice of Appeal as a nullity was granted with costs of the Application to the First Respondent/Applicant in the sum of $2000. Reason: The Notice of Appeal was against an interlocutory order; it was brought without leave and was therefore a nullity. The application, by the Appellant, to treat his affidavit as an application for an extension of time is an abuse of process which requires an application for an extension of time to be in writing and to be served on the other party to enable the other party to respond. he Appellant was ordered to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the Enforcement Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice David Harris dated 21st November, 2007. Case Name William Martin v Urcil Peters [Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2004] On paper: Appellant: Respondent: Issue: Application for extension of time Result: Reason: Mr. Charlesworth O.D. Browne Case Name Levi Lamazon v The Queen [Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007] On paper: Appellant: Steadroy Benjamin & Co. Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for bail to be admitted pending determination of the appeal Result: It was ordered that: 1. The Applicant/Appellant be admitted to bail in the amount of $5000.00 with two sureties in a like amount until the determination of his appeal. 2. The Applicant/Appellant surrender all travel documents. 3. The Applicant/Appellant report to the St. John’s Police Station every Monday and Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Reason: The DPP does not oppose the Appellant’s Application that he be placed on bail pending his appeal. He was sentenced to one year in prison and by the time the Record is prepared and the appeal comes on for hearing, the Appellant may have served his sentence. Case Name Cable & Wireless (W.I.) Limited v Conrad Tonge et al [Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2007] On paper: Applicant/ Respondent: Henry & Burnette Respondent/Ap pellant: Issue: Application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution Result: The Application was dismissed. Costs to the Respondent/Appellant in the sum of $500. Reason: The transcript was not ready and the appellant had not defaulted in prosecuting its appeal. Case Name Ahmed Stewart Williams v The Queen [Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008] On paper: Appellant: Mr. H. Asquith Fearon Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for bail to be admitted pending determination of trial Result: The application for bail was granted. The conditions of bail to be set by the court below before which the case is pending. Reason: The DPP does not oppose the Application and there is no reason why bail should be denied. Case Name Samantha Cochrane v Commissioner of Police [Magistrates Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2008] On paper: Appellant: Steadroy Benjamin & Co. Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time for filing Notice of Appeal Result: The Application was granted and time extended to 7th March, 2008 for the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Reason: The DPP does not oppose the Application for an extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal against sentence. DOMINICA Attorney General’s Chambers Case Name Justina Honore v Clement Rolle et al [Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008] On paper: Applicant/ Respondent: Ms. Dawn Yearwood-Stewart Respondent/Ap pellant: Issue: Application for extension of time Result: It was directed that the Chief Registrar should enquire from the Appellant/Respondent the following: 1. Whether the decision appealed against, is an interlocutory order and whether leave was obtained. 2. If leave was not obtained, the appellant/respondent should show cause why the appeal should not be struck out. 3. The submissions shall be filed with the court on or before 4th March, 2008. Reason: GRENADA Case Name Ian Francis et al v Renwick & Payne et al [Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2008] On paper: Applicants: Mr. Dwight D. Horsford Respondents: Renwick & Payne Issue: Application for Leave to Appeal Result: The Application for Leave to Appeal was granted. The Applicants were ordered to: 1. File and serve a Notice of Appeal against the Interlocutory Judgment of Honourable Madame Justice Clare Henry delivered on 21st January, 2008 in Civil Claim No. GDAHCV 2005/0209. 2. Proceed in accordance with the rules applicable to procedural appeals. 3. Provide copies of the “pleadings” along with written submissions.

4.File the Notice of Appeal, written submissions and copies of the pleadings on or before 6th March, 2008. Reason: SAINT KITTS & NEVIS Myrna Walwyn & Associates Case Name Alfred Powell et al v George Powell [Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2002] On paper: Applicant/ Respondent: Unrepresented Respondents/ Appellants: Issue: Application for Notice of Appeal to be struck out – Service of Notice of Application out of jurisdiction Result: 1. The obligation to serve Respondents/Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 out of the jurisdiction and any obligation imposed by the Court’s earlier orders on the Applicant to serve the Notice abroad was dispensed with in the exercise of the court’s case management functions under Rule 26.1. 2. Personal Service on Respondents/Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 was dispensed with. 3. The Application to strike out the Notice of Appeal filed on 15th July, 2002 as a nullity was granted and costs of $1000.00 were awarded to the Applicant/Respondent. Reason: 1. The Notice of Application was served on the First Appellant personally. Permission was granted for the Applicant to serve the Notice of Application on the Second and Third Appellants out of the jurisdiction. It was found to be unnecessary to have the Application served on the Second and Third Appellants out of the jurisdiction for the following reasons: (i) Under rule 3.11 of CPR 2000, an appellant must give an address for service within the jurisdiction. Further, an appellant must notify the Court and all other parties immediately if the address for service is changed, and any document sent to the original address before such notice of change is received (by the party serving the document) is regarded as having been validly served. (ii) The Appellants brought the appeal and were obliged to provide an address for service within the jurisdiction. There can be no obligation on a respondent to serve an appellant out of the jurisdiction. A respondent, who did not ask for an appeal, cannot be obliged to search for the appellant to serve him. (iii) It is the duty of the Appellants to prosecute the appeal. The Appellants cannot plead ignorance as an excuse for inaction, nor can they rely on their failure to instruct a new attorney and provide a new address for service. (iv) Given the sibling relationship of the First and Second Appellants and, in effect, the Third Appellant, it was very likely that the Second and Third Appellants were aware, from the personal service on the First Appellant, of the Notice of Application. 2. Leave not having been obtained to appeal against the interlocutory order, the Notice of Appeal must be struck out as a nullity. Oliver McDonna v Benjamin Wilson Richardson Anguilla Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2005 followed. Case Name Sandra Roberts v The Chief of Police [Magistrates Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007] 14th March, 2008 On paper: Appellant: Hesketh Benjamin Chambers Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal Result: The time limited for the Applicant to file a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Learned Senior Magistrate was extended to 28th March, 2008. Reason: Case Name Bank of Commerce (Saint Kitts & Nevis) Trust and Savings Association Limited v E. Anthony Ross [Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008] On paper: Appellant: Mr. Sylvester Anthony Respondent: Caribbean Associated Attorneys Issue: Application for Stay of Execution Result: The Application for a Stay of Execution was granted on condition that the distribution of any or all of the funds in respect of which judgment was obtained is prohibited pending the appeal. Reason: The Respondent did not oppose the Application if granted on the condition stated. ST. VINCENT & THE GRENADINES Case Name Turnley François v The Queen [Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2008] On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result: The Application was granted and it was directed that the letter dated 29th November, 2007 shall stand as the Notice of Appeal. Reason: In the absence of opposition and in light of the fact that the Applicant is acting in person it would be just to grant the extension.

CHAMBER HEARING Saint Lucia Tuesday 19th February, 2008