Panton J
1 IN THE GRAND COURT 2 HOLDEN AT GEORGE T 3 4 5 6 BETWEEN: 7 8 9 (as Perso 10 11 AND: 12 13 OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS OWN, GRAND CAYMAN Ca. ROBERT DOUGLAS JOSEPH (Widower) (a Chssie TOMLINSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) P.M.C. LTD (1/a CHSSIE TOMLINSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) se No. G322 OF 2018 ceased) PLAINTIFF 15 16 17 In Chambers on 2 May 18 19 Before the Honoura 20 21 22 APPEARANCES: 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Before me is 29 statement of 30 September 13 September 2014 Mr Justice Seymour Panton Mr Richard Annette of Stuarts Walker Hersant for the Plaintiff Mr Stephen Symons and Mrs Peta-Gaye Golaub-Symons for the Defendant RULING a summons dated 9 June 2014 seeking extension claim. The plaintiff is the widower of Tanya Edith Joseph, who 3010 following surgery performed on her at the DEFENDANT tiff of Bodden & Bodden of note to serve a eph who died on 25 Christie Tomlinson 31 Memorial No. 32 33 2. On 20 Septem- 34 issued a writ the Torts (Re- 35 The writ was 36 acknowledged) 37 38 Ruling - Robert D Joseph v. plaint in Grand Cayman. In November 2013, the plaintiff, as the personal representative of Tanya Edith Joseph (born) Law (1996 Revision) and the Estate Proceedings (1995 Revision) served in January 2014, and on 29 January 2014, an ment of service was filed with the Clerk of Courts. M Citd - G322 of 2013 (Justice Panton) ve of the deceased, for damages under Law (1995 Revision). 14, the defendant's Page 1 of 4
1 3. According to 2 defendant 3 the decease 4 5 4. Oder 18 r.1. 6 defendant 7 intention to 8 be served 9 10 to effect set of the Grand Court Rules requires that a statement of before the expiration of 14 days after the defendant died in its care. In the instant case, therefore, the statement of law dated 6 February 2014. This was not done. However, court on such terms as it thinks just, to extend the vice. An order of the court is not necessary if the pla- on the basis that the in post-surgical care of claim be served on a has given notice of of enough to have fever, Order 3 r. 5(1) time for the plaintiff intiff is able to secure the written 12 13 5. The defendant 14 the defenda- 15 seize the op- 16 May 2014. 17 18 6. In support of 19 which he said, 20 estate to fi- 21 deceased. 22 defendant has 23 expert opinion. 24 the expert su- 25 Further doc- 26 request, consent of the defendant: Order 3 r. 5(3). ent has not consented to the plaintiff’s request for and had given its consent on two earlier occasions and portunity to regularize the situation. The last such ci- If his application, the plaintiff filed an affidavit on 14 that in order to prepare his statement of claim, it was obtain expert evidence in respect of the treatme estate also had to secure copies of all medics relating to the deceased, and to dispatch same to them. The estate’s attorneys are now is possession of an gesting that the deceased had “suffered from a very ments have been requested of the defendant but extension. However, the plaintiff failed to consent expired on 23 September 2014, in as necessary for the ent received by the al records that the United Kingdom for information report from serious lack of care”. it has refused the 27 28 7. A statement 29 30 8. In his submi- 31 insignificant 32 proceed. The 33 the rules; no 34 The case is 35 plaintiff’s effec- 36 said Mr. Ann Ruling—Robert D Joseph v.F
1 further that 2 its procedur 3 4 9. Mr. Annett 5 undesirable 6 are available 7 8 9
Mr. Stephen 13 the service 14 himself to a 15 claim, he said 16 he referred 17 ER 415. 18 In Mr. Syno 19 and has not 20 11. In Costellow 21 personal inju 22 during road 23 medical repor 24 summons to 25 claim should Synons, in response, said that the plaintiff has been of the statement of claim. He submitted that the accusation of procedural abuse by the use of ques- tion Hydro Conveyors Limited v Conveyors International s' view, the plaintiff has totally disregarded time requir forward any substantial reasons for the delay.
Somerset County Council, the plaintiff issued a writ prior suffered when he slipped on loose gravel through his works. He was tardy in serving a statement or schedule of loss, as required by the rules. The dismiss the action, one hundred and eleven days after have been served persistent in delaying plaintiff had exposed blatant tactics. The filed. In this regard, Limited [1982] 3 AL quirements and limits, claiming damages for in order a pavement of earth as well as a defendant issued a er the statement of 26 27 12. The lower s 28 plaintiff to be Court of Ap- 30 special circuit 31 intentional do 32 order, the co 33 for want of p 34 of after the in defendant. Ruling = Robert D Joseph v P court made the order sought by the defendant. While the statement of claim out of time was also refused of England, it was held that in the ordinary way a instances, such as procedural abuse, questionable tactics fault or where a default was repeated or persisted in art should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss prosecution. An action may not be dismissed unless the use of the proceedings has caused at least a real risk M C Ltd. G322 of 2013 (Justice Panton) application by the on appeal to the tri in the absence of s, contumelious and after a peremptory ss a plaintiff's action e delay complained of prejudice to the Page 3 of4
1 13. Costelow was 2 that case, the 3 so had passed 4 application on 5 could not ex- 6 when conside- 7 requirements, 8 of a good rea- 9 to exercise its 10 the circumsta- followed in Finnegan v Parkside Health Authority 1395. plaintiff served a notice of appeal fifty seven days after it, and applied for leave to appeal out of time. The ground that in the absence of an explanation for its discretion in the plaintiff's favour. On appe- ing an application for extension of time for complying with the court had the widest measure of discretion. According to any delay was not in itself sufficient to justify extending to grant an extension, but the court was re- ceiving the case and recognize the overriding principle 8) 1 ALL ER 595. In the time for doing judge dismissed the he delay, the court al, it was held that with the procedural dingly, the absence need to look at all that justice had to 12 13 14. In determining 14 English priori- 15 which I am gu- 16 everything el- 17 most unfortun- 18 before the co- 19 part of the de- 20 the delay of a 21 the defendant. 22 23 In the circumsta- 24 ORDER 25 The applicatio- 26 The application, I have taken into consideration the present application, I have 27 serve the statu- tural rules are similar to those of the Cayman Islands and are the same as in England. The interests of justice re. The circumstances resulting in the death of Tan- e. The circumstances resulting in the death of Tan- le, it is very important that the plaintiff be allowed with a view to determining whether there has been a fendant institution. No evidence has been forthcom- few weeks has caused, or will cause, any inconveni- tances. I have no hesitation in granting the application. an is granted. Time is extended to 5 September 2014. In consideration of claim on the defendant. Costs of this applica- on the fact that the The principles by are take priority over a Edith Joseph are ed to put evidence in negligence on the ing to indicate that nce or prejudice to for the plaintiff to tion are awarded to 28 the defendant. 29 30 31 Dated 10th September 32 33 34 35 The Hon Justice Sey- 36 JUDGE OF THE GRAND Ruling - Robert D Joseph -V- er 2014 our Panton D COURT (Actg) M.C.Itd - G322 of 2013 (Justice Panton) Page 4 of 4