Grey, Gerald v Dist Cons Esson & Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Brooks, J.
• Judgment Date: 11 October 2002
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] 10 JJC 1102
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 11 October 2002
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. C.L. 1992/G229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN COMMON LAW

SUIT NO. C.L. 1992/G229

BETWEEN

GERALD GREY

PLAINTIFF

AND

DIST. CONS. ESSON

FIRST DEFENDANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SECOND DEFENDANT

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Action brought by plaintiff - Damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution sought - Inordinate and inexcusable delay - Application to be struck out - - Dismissal for want of prosecution

Brooks, J

1 The Defendants herein have applied for the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction of controlling its own procedure, to have the action bought by the Plaintiff against them, struck out. This step, they say, ought to be taken because of the delay by the Plaintiff in prosecuting the action.

2 The action is one in which the Plaintiff seeks damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment arising from an incident occurring in 1992 between himself and the First Defendant who is a District Constable.

3 The Defendants say that the delay has been manifest in the fact that although over ten years have passed the action has not yet been tried. It had been filed in November 1992 and placed on the cause list after pleadings were closed. The record shows that the action came on for trial in November 1995 but was removed from the Cause List when the Plaintiff failed to attend for the trial.

4 Since that time, the Defendants say, there have been some half-hearted steps taken by the Plaintiff in the action by filing and continually reissuing summonses to enlarge time in which to set down the matter on the Cause List. These steps were never properly prosecuted and the action has up to today's date not been restored to the Cause List.

5 The delay, the Defendants say, has been inordinate and inexcusable and has caused them prejudice because, to quote from the Affidavit of Susan Reid-Jones in support of the Defendant's application, "it is likely that memories of the event will fade and witnesses will disappear by the time the matter should come on for hearing" and also "that there is therefore a substantial risk that there cannot be a fair trial of the matter."

6 No specifics were provided to support these allegations of prejudice but Crown Counsel has candidly admitted that the First Defendant was still available and was still in the employ of the Crown.

7 The Plaintiff on the other hand says that the delay has not been as a result of any willful act on his part. He has given affidavit evidence to show that he...