Bank of Saint Lucia Ltd v General Aviation Services Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Judge: Pariagsingh, J
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0714-1
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Claim Number: SLUHCV2023/0512 formerly SLUHCV2013/0052

Between:

Bank of Saint Lucia Limited

Claimant

and

[1] General Aviation Services Limited

[2] Sylvanus Ernest

[3] Sohria Ernest

Defendants

and

The Sheriff of the High Court

Interested Party

[2025] ECSC J0714-1

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice Alvin S. Pariagsingh

Claim Number: SLUHCV2023/0512 formerly SLUHCV2013/0052

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DIVISION

Appearances:

Mr. Leslie Prospere for the Claimant, the Respondent to the application.

Mr. Arthur Compass for the Sherriff, the Interested Party.

Third Defendant/ Applicant, a litigant in person.

Application to set aside judicial sale by the Sheriff, Articles 428, 429, 501, 511, 511A, 2122 and 2129 of the Civil Code of Saint Lucia, Part 46 of the Civil Procedure (Revised Edition) Rules 2023, litigant in person, allegations of breach of constitutional rights, application to set aside default judgment.

Pariagsingh, J

1 — Before the Court is the Third Defendant's application filed on 23 ^rd April 2025 seeking an order staying and setting aside a judicial sale. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court was initially minded to deliver an oral decision. However, bearing in mind that the Third Defendant is a litigant in person, the Court considered it more appropriate to deliver its judgment in writing. To properly appreciate this decision, it is necessary to set out some procedural history and summarise the evidence before the Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

2 By Claim Form filed on 24 ^th January 2013, the Claimant, commenced a claim against the Defendants claiming joint and several liability for debts against the three defendants. The Claimant sought to recover money due and owing under two demand loans and two overdraft facilities granted by the Claimant at the request of the Defendants.

3 The Third Defendant was served with the claim on 7 ^th February 2013 1 and an Acknowledgement of Service was filed on 15 ^th February 2013. It is important to note that she admitted part of the claim, however, no further details were given as to how much of the debts was admitted 2.

4 A Defence was filed on 8 ^th March 2013 on behalf of the Third Defendant and a Request for Judgment in default was filed on 15 ^th April 2013 against the First and Second Defendants; they having filed no defence to the claim.

5 Default Judgment against the First and Second Defendants was granted on 17 ^th September 2013 3. The terms of the order are as follows:

• 1) Judgment in Default of Defence is entered against the First and Second Named Defendants in the following amounts:

  • i. The sum of $33,296.82 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or at a daily rate of $16.42 from 31 ^st December, 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full.

  • ii. The sum of $3,949.27 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or at the daily rate of $1.95 from 31 ^st December 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full.

  • iii. The sum of $35,658.78 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at a daily rate of $12.70 from 31 ^st December 2012 and continuing thereafter until fully paid.

  • iv. The sum of $557,450.80 together with interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum, or at a daily rate of $160.36 from 31 ^st December 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full, together with fixed costs of $2,500.00, service fees of $300.00 and court fees of $27.50.

• 2) The Claimant and the Third Named Defendant and their Counsel are in agreement that they meet to determine the terms of settlement of the action brought against the Third Named Defendant, and the parties are to report on 14th January, 2014, when the claim will be listed for further Case Management.

• 3) The First and Second Named Defendants do pay the sum of $7,000.00 monthly towards the total satisfaction of the Judgment debts, commencing on 29 ^th November 2013 and continuing monthly on the last working day of every month until the debt is settled in full. The consistency of the payments will be reviewed on 14 ^th January 2014.

6 On 14 ^th January 2014 4, the following order was made by a Master:

“UPON this matter coming on for Case Management Conference;

AND UPON the Claimant requesting Judgment against the Third Defendant, on the basis that the Defence discloses no reasonable ground for defending the claim;

The Court being of a similar view, the Defendant being a Guarantor, has difficulty avoiding the liability of the debt.

IT IS HERBEY ORDERED:

• 1) The Defence of the Third Named Defendant be and is hereby struck out.

• 2) Judgment in Default of Defence is entered against the First and Second Named Defendants in the following amounts:

  • i. The sum of $33,296.82 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or at a daily rate of $16.42 from 31st December, 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full.

  • ii. The sum of $3,949.27 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or at the daily rate of $1.95 from 31st December 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full.

  • iii. The sum of $35,658.78 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at a daily rate of $12.70 from 31st December, 2012 and continuing thereafter until fully paid.

  • iv. The sum of $557,450.80 together with interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum, or at a daily rate of $160.36 from 31st December, 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full, together with fixed costs of $2,500.00, service fees of $300.00 and court fees of $27.50.

  • v. The Court to provide reasons upon request.

7 It appears and can only be logically explained that the order of 14 ^th January 2014, the parts highlighted and underlined above, in error, referred to the First and Second Defendants when it ought to have referred to the Third Defendant. I say this as by the time this order was made, judgment had already been entered against the First and Second Defendants.

8 Further at the hearing on 14 ^th January 2014, the Third Defendant was present and represented by Counsel. No application was made by the Claimants to correct this order.

9 The matter stood in abeyance for almost 10 years until 28 ^th November 2023, when the Claimant filed a request for entry of judgment in default of defence against the Third Defendant.

10 This request was heard by this Court on 14 ^th February 2024, having been referred by the Registrar and the following order inter alia was made:

1) Judgment in default of a defence is entered for the Claimant against the Third Defendant for the following sums:

• i. Amount claimed under the first debt $33,296.82 together with interest on the principal sum under the first debt at the rate of 18% per annum from 31st December 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full (Daily rate thereafter= $16.42 per day)

• ii. Amount claimed under the second debt $3,949.27 together with interest on the principal sum under the second debt at the rate of 18% per annum from 31st December 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full (Daily rate thereafter= $1.95 per day)

• iii. Amount claimed under the third debt $35,658.78 together with interest on the principal sum under the third debt at the rate of 12% per annum from 31st December 2012 and continuing thereafter until fully paid (Daily rate thereafter= $12.70 per day)

• iv. Amount claimed under the fourth debt $557,450.80 together with interest on the principal sum under the fourth debt at the rate of 10.5% per annum from 31st December 2012 and continuing to date of payment in full (Daily rate thereafter= $160.36 per day)

• v. Court fees on claim, paid service of claim form, Legal practitioner's fixed costs on issue, Paid filing request for judgment, Paid registering judgment, Legal practitioner's fixed costs on entering judgment in the sum of $3,2150.

11 By Notice of Application, made without notice, filed on 22 ^nd November 2024, almost 9 months after securing default judgment against the Third Defendant, the Claimant applied to the Court for an order that leave be granted to issue a Writ of Seizure and Sale against the Judgment Debtors for the seizure and sale of immovable properties belonging to the Judgment Debtors and registered in the Land Registry as Block 0846B Parcel Numbers 281 and 377. The application was supported by the affidavit of Valdez James, a Legal Liaison Officer and Property Sales Administrator employed with the Claimant.

12 In his affidavit, he deposes that since the default judgment against the First and Second Defendants, the Judgment Debtors have not made any payments towards the said mortgage loans since 3 ^rd December 2013 and 28 ^th March 2014, in breach of the interim order made on 17 ^th September 2013. He further states that sometime in 2013, there was a meeting between the Third Defendant and the Claimant, to determine the settlement of the debt, but that this meeting was unsuccessful.

13 On 4 ^th November 2021, the Claimant, through its counsel, wrote to the Attorneys on record for the Third Defendant, requesting feedback on the outstanding issues arising from the judgments. No response was received to date.

14 He also deposes that on 2 ^nd November 2023 at 11:36 am, the Claimant attempted to reach out to the Third Defendant via email confirming an earlier telephone conversation and proposing terms of a consent order to obviate the need for applying to the Court for a default judgment against her.

15 At 12:45 pm the same day the Third Defendant responded to counsel in the following terms:

“Good day Leslie,

Thanks for your email.

My stance on this as the third defendant is to put the property up for auction.

Best Regards.”

16 Counsel for the Claimant responded to the Third Defendant's email at 2:20pm indicating that it was the intention of the Claimant to have the properties sold via a public auction, but her consent must first be secured in the form of the proposed consent order. It was indicated in this email that:

“All that we require you to...