Jamaica Money Market Brokers Ltd and Another v Pradeep Vaswani and Another

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2012] JMCC Comm 5

RULING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

COMMERCIAL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. 2011 CD 00076

Between
Jamaica Money Market Brokers Limited
1st Claimant

and

Jmmb International Limited
2nd Claimant
and
Pradeep Vaswani
1st Defendant

and

Santoshi Limited
2nd Defendant

Mr. Michael Hylton Q.C., Mrs. Symone Mayhew and Ms. Shauna Kaye Carter instructed by Harrison & Harrison for the Claimants.

Mr. Gordon Robinson , Mr. Peter Asher and Ms. Janene Laing , instructed by Phillipson Partners for the 1 st Defendant.

Evidence —Admissibility of documents —Rule 28.19 of the CPR —Meaning of authenticity —Whether documents admissible without more when recipient of disclosed document does not serve notice to prove document —Whether objection on grounds of hearsay can still be taken

Mangatal J:
RULING ON DOCUMENTS-RULE 28.19 OF THE C.P.R.
1

This ruling concerns admissibility of documents as exhibits and the meaning and purport of Rule 28.19 of the Civil Procedure Rules ‘the CPR’. Standard Disclosure and Inspection under Part 28 of the CPR as ordered at a case management conference have taken place, and the Claimants have applied to have certain documents entered en bloc as exhibits in this case. They rely upon Rule 28.19 of the CPR.

2

Rule 28.19 of the CPR reads as follows:

Notice to prove document

28.19 (1) A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of any document disclosed to that party under this part unless that party serves notice that the document must be proved at trial.

(2) A notice to prove a document must be served not less than 42 days before the trial.

3

The Attorneys-at-Law for the 1 st Defendant on the 2 nd of April 2012 filed a Notice Objecting, pursuant to Rule 28.19, to certain of the documents disclosed by the Claimants in their List of Documents, and expressly requiring the Claimants ‘to prove their authenticity at the trial’.

4

Learned Queen's Counsel Mr. Hylton, who appeared on behalf of the Claimants, submits that those documents in relation to which no objection has been filed should be admitted into evidence without more. Counsel for the 1 st Defendant, Mr. Robinson on the other hand, has submitted that Rule 28.19 has not relieved the party who has made disclosure of a document from having to prove that document's admissibility. Mr. Robinson has further submitted that the time to take objections on grounds other than proof of authenticity, for example on the basis of relevancy or the rule against hearsay, is at the time when it is sought to tender the document into evidence as an exhibit.

5

...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL