Didier et Al v Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd; Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Medical Associates Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Pereira, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 06 June 2016
• Neutral Citation: LC 2016 CA 7
• Docket Number: SLUHCVAP2014/0024
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 06 June 2016

Court of Appeal

Pereira, C.J.; Thom, J.A.; Webster, J.A. (Ag.)

SLUHCVAP2014/0024

Didier et al

and

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

and

Medical Associates Ltd et al

Appearances:

Mr. Geoffrey DuBoulay, with him, Ms. Sardia Cenac-Prospere for the appellants in 4th appeal SLUHCVAP2014/0024 (the 2nd -Respondents in appeal SLUHCVAP2015/0004)

Mr. Dexter Theodore for the Respondent in appeal SLUHCVAP2014/0024 (the appellant in appeal SLUHCVAP2015/0004)

Civil Practice and Procedure - Striking Out — Whether the master correctly exercised its discretion on striking out and/or dismissing the Royal Caribbean Cruises' claims in the court below — Distinction between procedures and test used for summary judgement and striking out — Consideration of Citco Global Custody NV v. Y2K Finance Inc. BVIHCVAP2008/0022 and Robert Edward Jones v. Her Majesty's Attorney-General sued on behalf of New Zealand Police [2003] UKPC 48. — Locus classicus of Swain v. Hillman and Another [2001] 1 All ER 91 considered — Whether the learned master properly exercised her discretion in applying the legal tests to RCC's tort and indemnity/contribution claims — Consideration of St. Rose v. Lafitte (1992) 42 W.I.R. 113 and ejusdem generis principles — Whether a foreign settlement could found a claim for relief under Article 989C(1)(c) of the Civil Code — Consideration of Fourth Transoceanic Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Raymond Smith Appellate Jurisdiction 1996 No. 395 — Finding that the law does not operate extra territorially — Finding that the master had properly exercised its discretion with regards to the contribution/indemnity claim — Appeal dismissed but counter notice of appeal allowed — CPR 26.3(1) — CPR Rule 15.4(1) — CPR Rule 15.4(2) — CPR Rule 15.4(3)

Limitation of Actions - Limitation of Actions — Prescription issue — Whether the tort claim was statute barred under article 2122 of the Civil Code by 3 years as the cause of action would have only arisen on the negligent treatment of the injured party — Consideration of Poliniere v. Felicien [2000] 1 W.L.R. 890 — Consideration of Law Society v. Sephton & Co (a firm) and others [2006] 2 A.C. 543 — Finding that the tort claim was not struck out on the basis of prescription

Mr. Paul Sterling was an employee of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“RCC”) who worked aboard the cruise ship “Explorer of the Seas”. One day, Mr. Sterling suddenly fell seriously ill while on the ship. He was taken off the vessel on 3rd April 2010 while it was docked in Saint Lucia in order to receive treatment at one of the local hospitals, known as Tapion Hospital. Tapion Hospital is owned, managed and administered by the first respondent in appeal SLUHCVAP2015/0004, Medical Associates Ltd. A company called Platinum Port Agency Incorporated (“Platinum”) handled the necessary arrangements for transporting Mr. Sterling to the hospital. Platinum formally indicated to Medical Associates Ltd., by way of letter, that it would be responsible for settling the medical charges incurred in treating Mr. Sterling at the hospital. Mr. Sterling was brought to Tapion Hospital and given medical treatment there. However, when his condition was observed post-treatment by doctors at the hospital, it was advised that he be airlifted out of Saint Lucia to receive further medical care elsewhere. By this point, Mr. Sterling was in a very poor state of health. He was air evacuated to a hospital in the United States.

RCC instituted proceedings against Medical Associates Ltd. in December 2012, alleging that Mr. Sterling had suffered ‘respiratory failure with severe hypoxia and/or hypoxemia and/or hypotension and/or preventable hypoxic encephalopathy’ as a result of the treatment which he had received at Tapion Hospital. RCC further stated in its claim that Mr. Sterling will require ongoing clinical healthcare and nursing for the rest of his life and will be incapable of performing normal, healthy, adult functions. RCC alleged that Mr. Sterling (by his lawful representatives) sought damages from it (RCC) arising out of the medical treatment received by Mr. Sterling while he was in Saint Lucia and that after various negotiations the parties were able to agree on a final settlement in the amount of US$5,750,000.00. This sum was inclusive of loss of earnings, past and present pain suffering and all potential claims by Mr. Sterling or his estate. RCC sought to recover the sums which it had paid out to Medical Associates Ltd. through the commencement of the local proceedings. RCC alleged that the medical treatment received by Mr. Sterling at Tapion Hospital was substantially below the required and/or proper and/or reasonable standard of care.

An amended claim form and statement of claim were filed by RCC on 25th June 2013 which added to the claim, as defendants, four doctors who had attended to Mr. Sterling at Tapion Hospital in April 2010. Three of these added defendants are the appellants in appeal SLUHCVAP2014/0024 (“the Doctors”). RCC sought relief under four separate heads: i) contract; ii) tort; iii) indemnity and/or contribution and/or restitution pursuant to US law provisions and article 989C(1)(c) of the Civil Code; [Cap. 4.01, Revised Laws of Saint Lucia 2008.] and iv) contribution at common law. On 13th May 2014, the Doctors made an application to have RCC's claim ‘struck out and/or dismissed’ with costs and in the alternative, security for costs of the proceedings. The application was brought pursuant to rules 15.2, 26.3(1)(b), 24.3(1)(f) and 24.3(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (“CPR”). Rules 15.2 and 26.3(1)(b) deal with summary judgment and striking out a statement of case respectively, while Part 24 of CPR deals with security for costs. The main ground of the application (which was further particularised) stated that RCC's claim against the Doctors ‘does not disclose any reasonable ground for bringing the claim and/or has no reasonable prospect of success’. The Doctors challenged RCC's claim under all heads apart from contribution at common law. In particular, in relation to the claim in tort, the Doctors contended that this claim was statute barred on the basis that it fell to be considered under article 2122 of the Civil Code rather than article 2121(7) of the Civil Code.

The learned master found that RCC's claim did disclose a cause of action in contract. She held that whether there existed a course of dealings between Platinum and Medical Associates Ltd. (as had been pleaded by RCC), with the Platinum acting as agent for RCC, was a matter for trial following the assessment of all evidence advanced and a determination of whether RCC was a reasonably contemplated party to the contract. She found however that RCC's claim did not disclose a cause of action in tort, nor in indemnity and/or contribution and/or restitution (pursuant to US law provisions and article 989C(1)(c)). Accordingly, she refused to strike out or dismiss the contractual claim, but struck out the tort and indemnity/contribution/restitution claims from the pleadings. Her basis for striking out the claim in tort however was not that it was prescribed as the Doctors had alleged – she found that article 2121(7) was applicable in the circumstances and so RCC's claim had been brought in time. Both the Doctors and RCC appealed the learned master's decision. The doctors challenged, by way of appeal, the learned master's finding that RCC's claim in tort is not prescribed, based on her construction of article 2121(7). They contended that the learned master erred in her interpretation of the article. The doctors also challenged, by way of counter notice, the learned master's reasoning and findings on the issue of whether RCC was a joint tortfeasor liable for the purposes of claiming contribution under article 989C(1)(c) of the Civil Code, as well as the basis of the learned master's decision on the contribution/indemnity claim at common law. RCC, on the other hand, complained that the learned master ought not to have struck out its claim in tort, as well as its claim for indemnity/contribution/restitution based on US law and article 989C(1)(c). RCC argued (among other things) that the learned master erred as to the proper test to be applied and/or the application of such test in relation to the striking out of a case at a preliminary stage. RCC further argued that the learned master erred in failing to allow for the fact that the matter is at a preliminary stage (prior to disclosure of documents, exchange of witness statements and expert evidence) and therefore the evidence before the court was necessarily far from complete.

Held: dismissing the Doctors' appeal but allowing their counter notice of appeal, and allowing RCC's appeal in part; setting aside the decision of the learned master striking out RCC's claim in tort so that it may proceed to trial; striking out RCC's claim in indemnity and/or contribution and/or restitution (pursuant to US law provisions and article 989C(1)(c) of the Civil Code); ordering that RCC's claim in contribution/indemnity at common law be allowed to proceed to trial; and ordering that costs be costs in the cause in the matter below, that:

• 1. The legal tests for entering summary judgment pursuant to CPR 15.2 and striking out a party's statement of case pursuant to CPR 26.3(1)(b) are not the same and should not be confused with each other. The summary judgment and strike out procedures are distinct – they have different procedural requirements, are used in different circumstances and have different legal consequences. In particular, the two cannot operate simultaneously. In disposing of a claim using the Part 15 summary judgment procedure, the legal issues in the case are considered by the court and then it is determined, on a balance of probabilities and in light of the affidavit evidence adduced by the parties, whether one party or the other has no real prospect of...