Construction Developers Associates Ltd v Urban Development Corporation

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Brooks JA,F Williams JA,Edwards JA (AG)
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2016
• Neutral Citation: JM 2016 CA 84
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: APPLICATION NO 128/2015
• Date: 23 September 2016

[2016] JMCA App 14A

JAMAICA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Brooks JA

The Hon Mr Justice F Williams JA

The Hon Miss Justice Edwards JA (AG)

APPLICATION NO 128/2015

Between

Construction Developers Associates Limited

Applicant

and

Urban Development Corporation

Respondent

Written submissions filed by DunnCox for the respondent

Brooks JA

1 On 3 June 2016 this court handed down a decision in this matter in which it granted Construction Developers Associates Limited (CDA) an extension of time within which to file a notice and grounds of appeal. Certain conditions attended the grant. The application for the extension of time had been opposed, in part, by Urban Development Corporation (UDC). The UDC's opposition was successful. Based on its success CDA's grounds of appeal were restricted.

2 At the time the judgment was handed down, the court ordered that one half of the costs of the application should be costs in the appeal. No order was made in respect of the other half. Learned counsel for the UDC, who attended at the delivery of the judgment, asked for the order for costs to be revisited. The panel that actually handed down the written judgment was, however, not the panel that heard the appeal and formulated the decision and the reasons therefor. The panel handing down the decision could not, therefore, have addressed the point raised by learned counsel. Based on the decision in Sans Souci Limited v VRL Services Limited [2012] UKPC 6, counsel on both sides were asked to file written submissions in respect of costs, for the consideration of the court. Learned counsel for the UDC filed very helpful submissions on the point, for which the court is grateful. CDA did not file any submissions in respect of the matter.

3 The essence of the issue is whether CDA, having failed to file its notice and grounds of appeal within the time stipulated by rule 1.11 of the Court of Appeal Rules (CAR), was entitled to the costs of the application. The submissions filed by Mr Vassell QC, on behalf of UDC, contended that CDA, having been in default, could not properly benefit from any order as to costs. Learned Queen's Counsel submitted that UDC incurred costs as a result of CDA's default and that the costs order should have been in favour of UDC. In his written submissions, Mr Vassell relied on an extract from the 14 ^th edition of A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure by Professor Sime. In paragraph 43.51 of that work, the learned author set out certain situations in which costs do not follow the event. At subparagraph (a), the learned author stipulates applications for extension

of time as one of those situations. He states there:

‘The costs of any application to extend time are...