White (Paul) v Homel Grant and Carlos Daley

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: BROOKS, J.
• Judgment Date: 07 April 2006
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2006] 4 JJC 0704
• Date: 07 April 2006
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. C.L. 1993 / W 127

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

SUIT NO. C.L. 1993 / W 127

BETWEEN

PAUL WHITE

CLAIMANT

AND

HOMEL GRANT

1 ^ST DEFENDANT

AND

CARLOS DALEY

2 ^ND DEFENDANT

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Sanctions - Relief

1 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS-JUDGMENT ENTERED BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS- APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

BROOKS, J

2 In light of the urgency of the situation, which I shall describe later, I made an order on the 23 ^rd March 2006 granting the Defendants' application for relief from sanctions. I then promised to put my reasons in writing at a later date. I now fulfil that promise.

3 On 13 ^th June 2005, Sinclair-Haynes J. (Ag.) ordered that judgment be entered in favour of Mr. Paul White against the defendants Messrs Homel Grant and Carlos Daley. It was the third time in the course of this claim that judgment was being entered in favour of Mr. White. On the previous two occasions the judgments were entered in default of Appearance and Defence respectively. On the third occasion the default was as a result of Messrs. Grant and Daley failing to comply with orders made by the court during the course of case management. Mr. Samuda, appearing on behalf of Mr. White described "a history of dilatoriness (by) the defendants".

4 Messrs. Grant and Daley now apply to the court for relief from the sanctions imposed for their latest failure. Mr. Samuda vigorously opposed the application highlighting the defaults previously mentioned.

5 The issue to be determined is whether Messrs. Grant and Daley have satisfied the requirements of rule 26.8, to allow the court to grant them the relief which they seek. I shall first outline some of the history of the matter, state the law as I understand it and then set out my reasons for the decision which I made in respect of the issue.

6 The History

7 This is a claim for damages for personal injury suffered by Mr. White. He alleges that he sustained the injuries as a result of the negligent handling of Mr. Daley's bus by Mr. Grant.

8 It is important to note that this case did come on for trial prior to the advent of the Civil Procedure Rules 2002, but was then adjourned on Mr. White's application. As a result of the change to the new régime it came on for hearing in a Case Management Conference on 15 ^th January, 2004, at which time a number of orders were made. The case came on for Pre-Trial Review on 27 ^th July, 2004 and at that time it was revealed that Messrs. Grant and Daley had not complied with any of the orders for the filing of documents, made at the Case Management Conference. That Pre-Trial Review was part-heard and adjourned to the 21 ^st September, 2004. On the 20 ^th September, (one day before the scheduled hearing) Messrs. Grant and Daley filed some of the outstanding documents.

9 There is no record of a hearing having taken place on 21 ^st September, but on 19 ^th October, 2004 at the continuation of the Pre-Trial Review the court made an order for Messrs. Grant and Daley to file, by specific dates, the documents still outstanding. The court then stipulated that Messrs. Grant and Daley's Statement of Case would stand struck out unless they complied with the orders then made. The case was again set for Pre-Trial Review to be held on 13 ^th June, 2005.

10 Once again Messrs. Grant and Daley, fell short. Some of the orders were complied with, but the requirement to file a Statement of Facts and a Listing Questionnaire, on or before specific dates in November, 2004 was not obeyed. Their Attorney-at- Law, Mr. Dunkley, candidly...