Myles v Christian
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | (Waddington, Eccleston and Luckhoo, JJ.A.) |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 1968 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
| Date | 05 April 1968 |
(Waddington, Eccleston and Luckhoo, JJ.A.)
R.C. Rattray for the appellants;
The respondent appeared in person.
N. W. Hill as amicus curiae.
(1) Evans v. WillsELR(1876), 1 C.P.D. 229, dictum of Cockburn, C.J. applied.
(2) Horsnail v. BruceELR(1873), L.R. 8 C.P. 378, observations of Bovill, C.J. and Brett J. followed.
(3) Lindsay v. Wong, [1924] Clarkes Reports 148.
(4) Stonor v. FowleELR(1887), 13 App. Cas.20; [188690] All E.R. Rep. 422.
(5) Thynne v. Thynne, [1955] P. 272; [1955] 2 All E.R. 377, followed.
Debtors Law (Laws of the Cayman Islands, 1963, cap. 34), s.3(4): For the purposes of this section, any Court having civil jurisdiction may direct any debt due from any person, in pursuance of any order or judgment of that or any other competent Court to be paid by instalments . . . .
Cayman Islands Administration of Justice Law (Laws of Jamaica, 1953, cap. 421), s.178:
Whenever any order of commitment shall have been made . . .
the Clerk of the Court shall issue . . . a warrant of commitment
directed to the Bailiff of the Court, who, by such warrant, shall be empowered to take the body of the person against whom such order shall be made . . . and the gaoler or keeper of every gaol or prison mentioned in any such order shall be bound to receive and keep therein the person against whom such order of commitment shall have been made, until he should be discharged . . . by due course of law.
Civil Procedure-execution-instalment payments-each instalment is separate debt and may imprison in default of payment of each-release conditional on payment of total debt not satisfied by payment of one instalment
Civil Procedure-judgments and orders-correction of errors-if order fails to implement courts intentions, aggrieved party should make proper application for court to amend-inherent power to correct own technical error
The appellants sought the reversal of a ruling of the Grand Court which would allow the release from prison of their judgment debtor, the respondent, without his paying the judgment debt in full.
The appellants had obtained judgment against the respondent in a civil suit. He failed to pay the judgment debt in full and a commitment summons was issued against him in respect of the 305.5s.0d. plus costs remaining unpaid. The Grand Court examined the respondent as to his means and ordered him to be committed for 14 days unless he paid the full sum owing but suspended the execution of the order for as long as the respondent continued to pay monthly instalments of 7.10s.0d.
When the respondent failed to pay the first such instalment, a warrant of commitment was issued endorsed for the release of the respondent on payment of the full amount of 305.5s.0d. plus costs. The respondent tendered the unpaid instalment of 7.10s.0d. but the bailiff refused to accept it and proposed to imprison him for 14 days. On the respondents application, the judge then purported to amend the endorsement on the warrant to allow the respondents release upon payment of an instalment of 7.I0s.0d., claiming that the endorsement misrepresented his intentions in making the earlier order and could be amended to make it conform to that order.
On appeal, the appellants submitted that (a) the warrant and its endorsement were clear and that only the payment of 305.5s.0d. plus costs could secure the respondents release; and (b) the Grand Courts interpretation and modification of the endorsement went in the face of its clear words and was improper.
The respondent submitted in reply that as the Grand Court was still in session at the time the judge modified the endorsement, it was still open to him to correct an apparent error, which this was. The amicus curiae submitted that the judges action had been correct, since it would be
inconsistent for him to require the payment of the full amount of the debt when he had already determined that the respondent was unable to pay it; the modification of the endorsement had therefore been no more than an administrative amendment to correct a mistake.
Held, allowing the appeal:
(1) The Grand Court had erred in amending the endorsement on the warrant of commitment because it in fact conformed to the order he had earlier made. Although it was the case that an order for the payment of a judgment debt by instalments meant that each instalment became a separate debt for which a separate order of commitment could be made, that was not what the judges orders had achieved. His order had made the respondents release conditional only upon his paying the full amount due-but had modified the harshness of that position by suspending the operation of the order for as long as the respondent continued to pay by instalments. When the respondent failed to pay one such instalment, therefore, the order ceased to be suspended and the payment of the full amount became the only way in which he could secure his release (page 105, line 32 page 107, line 6).
(2) Had it been necessary to amend the endorsement because it did not truly express the order the judge had intended to make, it should have been varied on a proper application under the Resident Magistrates Court Rules, O.XXII, r.17 (per Waddington, J.A., page 107, lines 3337; Eccleston, J.A. concurring) when the court would have had inherent jurisdiction to correct its own technical error (per Luckhoo, J.A., page 108, lines 37).
| WADDINGTON, J.A.: This is an appeal from an order made | |
| by the learned Judge of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands on | |
| February 22nd, 1967, whereby he ordered that the amount of | |
| 15 | 308.3s.0d. endorsed on the back of an order of commitment |
| issued against the |
To continue reading
Request your trial