21st February 2012

CHAMBER HEARING Tuesday, 21st February 2012 MATTERS DEALT WITH ON PAPER Before: The Hon. Mr. Don Mitchell, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Case Name: [1] Citus C. Hunte v [1] Heirs of Anthanize Bonne Hippolyte, Anita John (nee Hippolyte) [2] Felicia Hippolyte [3] Mary Hippolyte [High Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: Fraser & Co Issue: Application to strike out appeal Result / Order: Unless the appellant show satisfactory cause why the appeal should not be struck out, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Reason: There is no evidence that either the application or the affidavit was served. Additionally, there has been no compliance by either party with the notice from the Chief Registrar of 1st February 2012. Case Name: [1] Citus C. Hunte v [1] Heirs of Julienna Adda Charles [2] Anita Bonne Hippolyte (Deceased) [3] Julian Titte Graham [4] Julian Ritina Clarke [5] Magarite Monplasir [6] Mathurin Charles Heirs of Anthanize Bonne Hippolyte [7] Anita John (nee Hippolyte) [8] Felicia Hippolyte [9] Mary Hippolyte [High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: Chong & Co Issue: Application to strike out appeal Result / Order: Unless the appellant show satisfactory cause why the appeal should not be struck out, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Reason: There is no evidence that either the application or the affidavit was served. Additionally, there has been no compliance by either party with the notice from the Chief Registrar of 1st February 2012. Case Name: [1] Alvin Edward v [1] Eddie Monlouis [2] Attorney General [High Court Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Winston Hinkson & Associates Respondent: Ms. Jans Drysdale Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: Adjourned to the next chamber hearing 29th March 2012 at the request of both parties. Reason: The Court noted that the transcript of proceedings was not available as yet. Case Name: [1] General Aviation Services Ltd. [2] Silvanus Ernest v [1] The Director General of the Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority [2] The Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority [High Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012] (St. Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Alberton Richelieu Respondent: Mr. Renee Williams with Mr. Mark Maragh Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: The hearing of the application for leave to appeal be fixed before a single judge at the next chamber hearing scheduled for 29th March 2012. Reason: The Court was minded to refuse leave owing to the fact that the legal practitioner for the applicant did not comply with the request from the Chief Registrar of 8th February 2012 to comply with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions. Case Name: Marcelinus Gustave v The Police [Magistrate Criminal Appeal No. 3A,B,C,D of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In Person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Withdrawal of appeal Result / Order / Reason: The appeal having been withdrawn is accordingly dismissed. Case Name: Hubert Jn. Baptiste v Saint Lucia Electricity Service [High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: McNamara & Co Issue: Case management of appeal Result / Order: 1. The appellant shall serve the notice of appeal upon the respondent on or before 6th March 2012. 2. The appellant is to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on or before 6th March 2012, for being filed out of time, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed. 3. Further case management is adjourned to 29th March 2012. Reason: The appellant filed the appeal three (3) years late. Furthermore, he did not comply with the rules for the filing of an appeal. Case Name: [1] The Attorney General [2] Chief Immigration Officer v [1] Clive Oliveira [High Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009] (Antigua and Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Attorney General’s Chambers Respondent: Ms. Bridget Nelson Issue: Application for appeal to be dismissed Result / Order: The application to dismiss the appeal is adjourned to the next chamber hearing on 29th March 2012 to permit a copy of the notice of appeal to be transmitted to the Court’s Headquarters. Reason: A copy of the notice of appeal was not transmitted to the Court of Appeal. Case Name: [1] Landmark Ltd. [2] Woods Development Ltd. v [1] American International Bank (In Receivership) [High Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2010] (Antigua and Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dane Hamilton & Associates Respondent: Marshall & Co. Issue: Application for extension of time to comply with Order of 19th September 2011 Result / Order: Time is extended to one month from today’s date to comply with the Order of the Court dated 19th September 2011. Reason: The Court noted that there were problems in the preparation of the Record as such the time set for the Record to be transmitted, which was 90 days from the date of the Order, expired on 18th December 2011. Case Name: [1]Gaden Brooks V [1] Sonel Kirwan [2] Orie Cole [3] Dorien Cole [High Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2011] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Richards & Co. Respondent: Mr. Steadroy C.O. Benjamin Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Application for extension of time Result / Order: 1. Time is extended to 21st March 2012 to comply with the directions of the Court dated 24th January 2012. 2. In the event that there is no transcript of the argument at the hearing, the Master’s notes or reasons for decision be transmitted on or before 21st March 2012. 3. The application is adjourned to 29th March 2012. Reason: The Court took into consideration the fact that the draft order has only just been filed and also that there was no transcript of the proceedings before the Master at the hearing on 23rd November 2011 as the hearing was not recorded. Case Name: Robin Mark Darby v Liat (1974) Limited [High Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2012] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dane Hamilton & Associates Respondent: Lake & Kentish Issue: Application for leave to appeal against order by master dismissing an application for relief from sanctions Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal is adjourned to the next chamber hearing on 29th March 2012. Reason: The Court noted that, although a fax was sent by the Chief Registrar on 8th February 2012 requiring compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions, there was no such compliance. Additionally, there was no copy of the order being appeal against attached to the application, nor any submissions in writing. Case Name: [1] Sea Star Limited v [1] Timothy Dupont-Stinedurf [2] Blue A Design Company Inc. [High Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2012] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Henry & Burnette Respondent: Mr. Anthony Greer, Esq. Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal and stay of execution is adjourned to the next chamber hearing on 29th March 2012. Reason: There was a faxed notice, dated 6th February 2012, by the Chief Registrar advising of the hearing on 21st February 2012 and requiring compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions. Notwithstanding this, there has been no compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions. Case Name: [1] Vernon O’brien [2] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica v [1] Yohanna George [High Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Attorney General’s Chambers Respondent: Ms. Dawn Yearwood-Stewart Issues: Application for extension of time to file submissions in support of appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: 1. Time is extended to file submissions in support of the appeal and the record of appeal. 2. The submissions filed on 20th January 2012 are deemed to be validly filed. 3. The record of appeal be filed and served on or before 24th April 2012. 4. Thereafter, the relevant Rules of the Court shall apply. 5. A stay of execution pending appeal is granted. Reason: There was no objection to the applications. Case Name: Joseph Raphael LeBlanc v The Public Service Commission [High Court Civil No. 13 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Wayne Norde Respondent: Attorney General’s Chambers Issue: Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal Result / Order: The application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is dismissed. Reason: There was no draft copy of the proposed notice of appeal exhibited, nor was there any indication that the appeal has a real prospect of success. Case Name: [1] Catherine Daniel [2] Mr. Forbes Parillon v [1] Ann Langlias [High Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Dyer & Dyer Issues: Application for extension of time to file record of appeal – Application for leave to amend skeletal arguments Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to file the record of appeal and for leave to amend skeletal submissions, chronology and the notice of appeal is granted. 2. The record of appeal to be filed and served on or before 30th April 2012. Reason: The application was served and there was no response by way of notice of opposition or otherwise. Case Name: [1] Leonard Alexander v [1] Denroy Charles [2] David Corriette trading as Lindo Park Car Rental [High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dyer & Dyer Respondent: DeFreitas, DeFreitas and Johnson Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order / Reason: Notice of discontinuance having been filed, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Case Name: [1] Anison Rabess [2] Joyce Rabess v [1] National Bank of Dominica [High Court Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Mr. Kevin Williams Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal is granted. Reason: The Court noted that the judgment in default was entered for a greater sum than was due. Case Name: Antoine Raffoul v Yvette Raffoul [High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Ms. Singoalla Blomqvist-Williams Respondent: Ms. Hazel Johnson Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: Leave to appeal the orders of Justice Birnie Stephenson-Brooks dated 28th January 2011, 10th June 2011 and Order of Justice Brian Cottle dated 16th June 2011 is granted. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the mediation was ordered by the court and was not one that was requested by the parties. Case Name: [1] Clemeta Bleau v [2] Lena Durand [3] Sandra Luke [High Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2009] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dyer & Dyer Respondent: Ms. Singoalla Blomqvist-Williams Issue: Application to strike out appeal Result / Order: The application of the respondent to strike out the appeal is adjourned to the Court of Appeal sitting in the Commonwealth of Dominica during the week of 30th April 2012. Reason: The Court decided to list the appeal for hearing as it was evident that the appeal would be ready to be heard after some 17 years. Case Name: Josephine Charles v Zelinak Charles [High Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: DeFreitas, DeFreitas and Baron Respondent: Dyer & Dyer Issue: Application for substitution as claimant Result / Order: 1. The application for substitution for the applicant, Micah Charles, personal representative of the estate of Josephine Charles, be substituted as the Claimant in place of Josephine Charles, deceased, is granted. 2. The record of appeal to be filed and served on or before 31st May 2012. 3. Thereafter, the Rules of the Court to be followed. Reason: The appellant is now deceased so her personal representative was substituted in place of her. Case Name: [1] Rholda Bhola [2] Lenore Bhola v [1] Ashandi Edwards [High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012] (Grenada) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: The Law Office of G.E.D Clyne Respondent: Derick F. Sylvester & Associates Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Application for extension of time to amend grounds of appeal Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal and for leave to amend the grounds of appeal as stated in the notice of appeal is dismissed. Reason: The Court, having read all the submissions of the applicant, decided to uphold the submissions of the respondent and dismiss the applications. Case Name: Christopher Gerald v Lilan Riley [High Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2011] (Montserrat) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Allen Markham & Associates Respondent: Attorney General’s Chambers Issue: Application for stay of execution Result / Order: The application for stay of execution of the decision of Octave J, dated 23rd June 2011 delivered 27th June 2011 pending the outcome of the appeal is dismissed. Reason: There was no compliance with the Practice Directions and no evidence that service of the application was effected on the respondent. Case Name: [1] Lindsay Fitz Patrick Grant V [1] Rupert Herbert [2] Leroy Benjamin [3] Wentford Rogers [High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012] (Saint Christopher & Nevis) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Seaton & Foreman Respondent: Mr. Arudranauth Gossai Issues: Application for extension of time to file notice of application for leave to appeal – Application for relief from sanctions Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal, relief from sanctions, and stay of execution of the judgment of 21st December 2011 is granted. 2. The application for leave to appeal filed on 24th January 2012 is deemed to have been properly filed. 3. Leave to appeal is granted. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the judgment was written in draft and counsel request to see the written final judgment in preparation of his application for leave to appeal. Case Name:

[1]Eugene Hamilton v [1] Cedric Liburd

[2]Leroy Benjamin

[3]Wayland Vaughn [High Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2011] (Saint Christopher & Nevis) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mitcham & Benjamin Respondent: Delano Bart & Co. for first respondent Mr. Arudranauth Gossai for second respondent Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal the decision of Thomas J [Ag.] in the judgment delivered on 2nd December 2011 is granted. Reason: Notwithstanding the notice from the Chief Registrar requesting compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions, there were no submissions or authorities filed in support of the application for leave, nor any indication under what statute or Rule the application is made. However, the Court noted that the Practice Direction was relatively new. Case Name: [1] Resenda Browne V [1] Nigel Romney [2] Lionel Patrick [High Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2011] (Saint Christopher & Nevis) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Sylvester Anthony Respondent: Mr. Adrian Scantlebury Issue: Application for extension of time to file counter notice of appeal Result / Order: 1. Time be extended retroactively to 20th January 2012 for the filing of the respondents’/cross- appellants’ counter notice of appeal. 2. No order as to costs. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the counter notice of appeal was filed on 20th January 2012, which was the date the respondent requested the extension of time to file counter notice of appeal be extended to. Case Name: Hollis Young v The Commissioner of Police [Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2011] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In Person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order / Reason: The application is adjourned for the Chief Registrar to find out from the Registrar of the High Court what steps have been taken to comply with the orders of the Court dated 20th December 2011 and 24th January 2012. Case Name: David Frederick v The Commissioner of Police [Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2012] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In Person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time is granted. 2. The notice of appeal filed on 4th January 2012 is deemed validly filed. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the appellant was appearing in person. Case Name: Romencia Lewis v The Commissioner of Police [Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2012] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to appeal is granted. 2. The notice of appeal filed 4th January, 2012 is deemed validly filed. Reason: The Court took into consideration that at the time of her conviction the appellant, who was a first time offender, was pregnant and was not told of her right to appeal. Case Name: Mary Duncan v Christopher Adams [High Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2011] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Sylvester-Raymond Cadette Respondent: Mr. Stephen McA Huggins Issues: Application for extension of time to appeal – Application for leave to appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal is granted. 2. Stay of execution is granted pending the hearing of the appeal. Reason: The Court noted that, although a copy of the judgment was served on the appellant personally, the appellant’s attorney was never served with a copy. Before: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal Case Name: [1] HMB Holdings Limited V [1] The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2] David Mathias [High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Richards and Co. Respondent: Attorney General’s Chambers Issues: Application for conditional leave to appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: 1. The respondents/applicants are granted leave to appeal to Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council in respect of the Order made on 5th December 2011, whereby, inter alia, the appellant’s appeal against the Order made by the Board comprising the Hon. Justice David Harris, Chairman, Mr. Victor Michael and Mrs. Joyce Kentish, Members dated 5th January 2010. 2. The respondents/applicants shall within 90 days of the date of this Order enter into good and sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court in the sum of ₤500 (or its US dollar equivalent) for the due prosecution of the appeal and the payment of all such costs as may become payable by the respondents/applicants in the event of their not obtaining an order granting them final leave to appeal or of the appeal being dismissed for non-prosecution or the Judicial Committee ordering them to pay the costs of the appeal (as the case may be). 3. The record should be prepared in accordance with Rules 18-20 of Rules of the Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 2009 and its Practice Directions 4.2.1 to 4.3.2 and Practice Direction 5; the same to be transmitted to the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council without delay where final permission to appeal has been granted. 4. The respondents/applicants shall make an application to the Court for final leave to Her Majesty in Council, supported by the Certificate of the Registrar that the security for costs and the prosecution of the appeal ordered herein has been given within the time prescribed by this Order to the satisfaction of the Registrar. 5. The costs of and occasioned by this application be costs in the appeal to Her Majesty in Council. Reason: The appellants satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.

CHAMBER HEARING Tuesday, 21st February 2012 MATTERS DEALT WITH ON PAPER Before: The Hon. Mr. Don Mitchell, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Case Name:

[1]Citus C. Hunte v

[2]Felicia Hippolyte

[3]Mary Hippolyte [High Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: Fraser & Co. Issue: Application to strike out appeal Result / Order: Unless the Appellant: show satisfactory cause why the appeal should not be struck out the Appeal shall stand dismissed. Reason: There is No. evidence that, either the application or the affidavit was served Additionally, there has been no compliance by either party with The notice from The Chief Registrar of 1st February 2012 2. case Name:

[1]Heirs of Anthanize Bonne Hippolyte, Anita John (nee Hippolyte)

[1]Citus C. Hunte v

[1]Heirs of Julienna Adda Charles

[2]Anita Bonne Hippolyte (Deceased)

[3]Julian Titte Graham

[4]Julian Ritina Clarke

[5]Magarite Monplasir

[6]Mathurin Charles Heirs of Anthanize Bonne Hippolyte

[7]Anita John (nee Hippolyte)

[8]Felicia Hippolyte

[9]Mary Hippolyte [High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: Chong & Co Issue: Application to strike out appeal Result / Order: Unless the appellant show satisfactory cause why the appeal should not be struck out, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Reason: There is no evidence that either the application or the affidavit was served. Additionally, there has been no compliance by either party with the notice from the Chief Registrar of 1st February 2012. Case Name:

[1]Alvin Edward v 3

[1]Eddie Monlouis

[2]Attorney General [High Court Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Winston Hinkson & Associates Respondent: Ms. Jans Drysdale Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: Adjourned to the next chamber hearing 29th March 2012 at the request of both parties. Reason: The Court noted that the transcript of proceedings was not available as yet. Case Name:

[1]General Aviation Services Ltd.

[2]Silvanus Ernest v

[1]The Director General of the Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority

[2]The Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority [High Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012] (St. Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Alberton Richelieu 4 Respondent: Mr. Renee Williams with Mr. Mark Maragh Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: The hearing of the application for leave to appeal be fixed before a single judge at the next chamber hearing scheduled for 29th March 2012. Reason: The Court was minded to refuse leave owing to the fact that the legal practitioner for the applicant did not comply with the request from the Chief Registrar of 8th February 2012 to comply with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions. Case Name: Marcelinus Gustave v The Police [Magistrate Criminal Appeal No. 3A,B,C,D of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In Person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Withdrawal of appeal Result / Order / Reason: The appeal having been withdrawn is accordingly dismissed. Case Name: Hubert Jn. Baptiste v Saint Lucia Electricity 5 Service [High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011] (Saint Lucia) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: McNamara & Co Issue: Case management of appeal Result / Order: 1. The appellant shall serve the notice of appeal upon the respondent on or before 6th March 2012.

2.The appellant is to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on or before 6th March 2012, for being filed out of time, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed.

3.Further case management is adjourned to 29th March 2012. Reason: The appellant filed the appeal three (3) years late. Furthermore, he did not comply with the rules for the filing of an appeal. Case Name:

[1]The Attorney General

[2]Chief Immigration Officer v

[1]Clive Oliveira [High Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009] (Antigua and Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Attorney General’s Chambers 6 Respondent: Ms. Bridget Nelson Issue: Application for appeal to be dismissed Result / Order: The application to dismiss the appeal is adjourned to the next chamber hearing on 29th March 2012 to permit a copy of the notice of appeal to be transmitted to the Court’s Headquarters. Reason: A copy of the notice of appeal was not transmitted to the Court of Appeal. Case Name:

[1]Landmark Ltd.

[2]Woods Development Ltd. v

[1]American International Bank (In Receivership) [High Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2010] (Antigua and Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dane Hamilton & Associates Respondent: Marshall & Co. Issue: Application for extension of time to comply with Order of 19th September 2011 Result / Order: Time is extended to one month from today’s date to comply with the Order of the Court dated 19th September 2011.7 Reason: The Court noted that there were problems in the preparation of the Record as such the time set for the Record to be transmitted, which was 90 days from the date of the Order, expired on 18th December 2011. Case Name: [1]Gaden Brooks V

[1]Sonel Kirwan

[2]Orie Cole

[3]Dorien Cole [High Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2011] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Richards & Co. Respondent: Mr. Steadroy C.O. Benjamin Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Application for extension of time Result / Order: 1. Time is extended to 21st March 2012 to comply with the directions of the Court dated 24th January 2012.

2.In the event that there is no transcript of the argument at the hearing, the Master’s notes or reasons for decision be transmitted on or before 21st March 2012.

3.The application is adjourned to 29th March 2012. Reason: The Court took into consideration the fact that the draft order has only just been filed and also that there was no transcript of the proceedings before the 8 Master at the hearing on 23rd November 2011 as the hearing was not recorded. Case Name: Robin Mark Darby v Liat (1974) Limited [High Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2012] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dane Hamilton & Associates Respondent: Lake & Kentish Issue: Application for leave to appeal against order by master dismissing an application for relief from sanctions Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal is adjourned to the next chamber hearing on 29th March 2012. Reason: The Court noted that, although a fax was sent by the Chief Registrar on 8th February 2012 requiring compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions, there was no such compliance. Additionally, there was no copy of the order being appeal against attached to the application, nor any submissions in writing. Case Name:

[1]Sea Star Limited v

[1]Timothy Dupont-Stinedurf

[2]Blue A Design Company Inc. 9 [High Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2012] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Henry & Burnette Respondent: Mr. Anthony Greer, Esq. Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal and stay of execution is adjourned to the next chamber hearing on 29th March 2012. Reason: There was a faxed notice, dated 6th February 2012, by the Chief Registrar advising of the hearing on 21st February 2012 and requiring compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions. Notwithstanding this, there has been no compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions. Case Name:

[1]Vernon O’brien

[2]Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica v

[1]Yohanna George [High Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Attorney General’s Chambers 10 Respondent: Ms. Dawn Yearwood-Stewart Issues: Application for extension of time to file submissions in support of appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: 1. Time is extended to file submissions in support of the appeal and the record of appeal.

2.The submissions filed on 20th January 2012 are deemed to be validly filed.

3.The record of appeal be filed and served on or before 24th April 2012.

4.Thereafter, the relevant Rules of the Court shall apply.

5.A stay of execution pending appeal is granted. Reason: There was no objection to the applications. Case Name: Joseph Raphael LeBlanc v The Public Service Commission [High Court Civil No. 13 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Wayne Norde Respondent: Attorney General’s Chambers Issue: Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal Result / Order: The application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is dismissed. 11 Reason: There was no draft copy of the proposed notice of appeal exhibited, nor was there any indication that the appeal has a real prospect of success. Case Name:

[1]Catherine Daniel

[2]Mr. Forbes Parillon v

[1]Ann Langlias [High Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Dyer & Dyer Issues: Application for extension of time to file record of appeal – Application for leave to amend skeletal arguments Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to file the record of appeal and for leave to amend skeletal submissions, chronology and the notice of appeal is granted.

2.The record of appeal to be filed and served on or before 30th April 2012. Reason: The application was served and there was no response by way of notice of opposition or otherwise. 12 Case Name:

[1]Leonard Alexander v

[1]Denroy Charles

[2]David Corriette trading as Lindo Park Car Rental [High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dyer & Dyer Respondent: DeFreitas, DeFreitas and Johnson Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order / Reason: Notice of discontinuance having been filed, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Case Name:

[1]Anison Rabess

[2]Joyce Rabess v

[1]National Bank of Dominica [High Court Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Lennox Lawrence Respondent: Mr. Kevin Williams Issue: Application for leave to appeal 13 Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal is granted. Reason: The Court noted that the judgment in default was entered for a greater sum than was due. Case Name: Antoine Raffoul v Yvette Raffoul [High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Ms. Singoalla Blomqvist-Williams Respondent: Ms. Hazel Johnson Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: Leave to appeal the orders of Justice Birnie Stephenson-Brooks dated 28th January 2011, 10th June 2011 and Order of Justice Brian Cottle dated 16th June 2011 is granted. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the mediation was ordered by the court and was not one that was requested by the parties. Case Name:

[1]Clemeta Bleau v

[2]Lena Durand

[3]Sandra Luke 14 [High Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2009] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Dyer & Dyer Respondent: Ms. Singoalla Blomqvist-Williams Issue: Application to strike out appeal Result / Order: The application of the respondent to strike out the appeal is adjourned to the Court of Appeal sitting in the Commonwealth of Dominica during the week of 30th April 2012. Reason: The Court decided to list the appeal for hearing as it was evident that the appeal would be ready to be heard after some 17 years. Case Name: Josephine Charles v Zelinak Charles [High Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006] (Dominica) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: DeFreitas, DeFreitas and Baron Respondent: Dyer & Dyer Issue: Application for substitution as claimant Result / Order: 1. The application for substitution for the applicant, 15 Micah Charles, personal representative of the estate of Josephine Charles, be substituted as the Claimant in place of Josephine Charles, deceased, is granted.

2.The record of appeal to be filed and served on or before 31st May 2012.

3.Thereafter, the Rules of the Court to be followed. Reason: The appellant is now deceased so her personal representative was substituted in place of her. Case Name:

[1]Rholda Bhola

[2]Lenore Bhola v

[1]Ashandi Edwards [High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012] (Grenada) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: The Law Office of G.E.D Clyne Respondent: Derick F. Sylvester & Associates Issues: Application for leave to appeal – Application for extension of time to amend grounds of appeal Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal, extension of time to appeal and for leave to amend the grounds of appeal as stated in the notice of appeal is dismissed. Reason: The Court, having read all the submissions of the applicant, decided to uphold the submissions of the respondent and dismiss the applications. 16 Case Name: Christopher Gerald v Lilan Riley [High Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2011] (Montserrat) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Allen Markham & Associates Respondent: Attorney General’s Chambers Issue: Application for stay of execution Result / Order: The application for stay of execution of the decision of Octave J, dated 23rd June 2011 delivered 27th June 2011 pending the outcome of the appeal is dismissed. Reason: There was no compliance with the Practice Directions and no evidence that service of the application was effected on the respondent. Case Name:

[1]Lindsay Fitz Patrick Grant V

[1]Rupert Herbert

[2]Leroy Benjamin

[3]Wentford Rogers [High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012] (Saint Christopher & Nevis) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: 17 Appellant: Seaton & Foreman Respondent: Mr. Arudranauth Gossai Issues: Application for extension of time to file notice of application for leave to appeal – Application for relief from sanctions Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal, relief from sanctions, and stay of execution of the judgment of 21st December 2011 is granted.

2.The application for leave to appeal filed on 24th January 2012 is deemed to have been properly filed.

3.Leave to appeal is granted. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the judgment was written in draft and counsel request to see the written final judgment in preparation of his application for leave to appeal. Case Name:

[1]Eugene Hamilton v

[1]Cedric Liburd

[2]Leroy Benjamin

[3]Wayland Vaughn [High Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2011] (Saint Christopher & Nevis) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mitcham & Benjamin Respondent: Delano Bart & Co. for first respondent 18 Mr. Arudranauth Gossai for second respondent Issue: Application for leave to appeal Result / Order: The application for leave to appeal the decision of Thomas J [Ag.] in the judgment delivered on 2nd December 2011 is granted. Reason: Notwithstanding the notice from the Chief Registrar requesting compliance with the relevant Rules and Practice Directions, there were no submissions or authorities filed in support of the application for leave, nor any indication under what statute or Rule the application is made. However, the Court noted that the Practice Direction was relatively new. Case Name:

[1]Resenda Browne V

[1]Nigel Romney

[2]Lionel Patrick [High Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2011] (Saint Christopher & Nevis) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Sylvester Anthony Respondent: Mr. Adrian Scantlebury Issue: Application for extension of time to file counter notice of appeal Result / Order: 1. Time be extended retroactively to 20th January 2012 for the filing of the respondents’/cross-19 appellants’ counter notice of appeal.

2.No order as to costs. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the counter notice of appeal was filed on 20th January 2012, which was the date the respondent requested the extension of time to file counter notice of appeal be extended to. Case Name: Hollis Young v The Commissioner of Police [Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2011] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In Person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order / Reason: The application is adjourned for the Chief Registrar to find out from the Registrar of the High Court what steps have been taken to comply with the orders of the Court dated 20th December 2011 and 24th January 2012. Case Name: David Frederick v The Commissioner of Police [Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2012] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 20 On paper: Appellant: In Person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time is granted.

2.The notice of appeal filed on 4th January 2012 is deemed validly filed. Reason: The Court took into consideration that the appellant was appearing in person. Case Name: Romencia Lewis v The Commissioner of Police [Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2012] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: In person Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions Issue: Application for extension of time to appeal Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to appeal is granted.

2.The notice of appeal filed 4th January, 2012 is deemed validly filed. Reason: The Court took into consideration that at the time of her conviction the appellant, who was a first time 21 offender, was pregnant and was not told of her right to appeal. Case Name: Mary Duncan v Christopher Adams [High Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2011] (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Mr. Sylvester-Raymond Cadette Respondent: Mr. Stephen McA Huggins Issues: Application for extension of time to appeal – Application for leave to appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: 1. The application for extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal is granted.

2.Stay of execution is granted pending the hearing of the appeal. Reason: The Court noted that, although a copy of the judgment was served on the appellant personally, the appellant’s attorney was never served with a copy. Before: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal Case Name:

[1]HMB Holdings Limited V

[1]The Attorney General of Antigua and 22 Barbuda

[2]David Mathias [High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010] (Antigua & Barbuda) Date: Tuesday, 21st February 2012 On paper: Appellant: Richards and Co. Respondent: Attorney General’s Chambers Issues: Application for conditional leave to appeal – Application for stay of execution Result / Order: 1. The respondents/applicants are granted leave to appeal to Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council in respect of the Order made on 5th December 2011, whereby, inter alia, the appellant’s appeal against the Order made by the Board comprising the Hon. Justice David Harris, Chairman, Mr. Victor Michael and Mrs. Joyce Kentish, Members dated th January 2010.

2.The respondents/applicants shall within 90 days of the date of this Order enter into good and sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court in the sum of ₤500 (or its US dollar equivalent) for the due prosecution of the appeal and the payment of all such costs as may become payable by the respondents/applicants in the event of their not obtaining an order granting them final leave to appeal or of the appeal being dismissed for non-prosecution or the Judicial Committee ordering them to pay the costs of the appeal (as the case may be).

3.The record should be prepared in accordance with Rules 18-20 of Rules of the Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 2009 and its Practice Directions 4.2.1 to 4.3.2 and Practice Direction 5; the same to be transmitted to the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council without delay where final permission to appeal has been granted. 23

4.The respondents/applicants shall make an application to the Court for final leave to Her Majesty in Council, supported by the Certificate of the Registrar that the security for costs and the prosecution of the appeal ordered herein has been given within the time prescribed by this Order to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

5.The costs of and occasioned by this application be costs in the appeal to Her Majesty in Council. Reason: The appellants satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.