Ex parte Richard Adley

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 09 August 1958
• Neutral Citation: LC 1958 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 44 of 1956
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 09 August 1958

Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands. High Court

Wills, J.

No. 44 of 1956

Ex Parte Richard Adley

Appearances:

K. Monsplaisir for the petitioner.

Practice and procedure - Petition.

Facts: The issue was whether the petition disclosed a good and sufficient ground for a review of a survey made by a government surveyor under an Order of the Supreme Court.

Held: The petition was lacking in certain basic proofs. The reasons set out in the petition were not good and sufficient reasons to move the court to grant a review of the survey. The matter was not properly before the court. Order to review survey declined.

Wills, J.

1 The ex parte petition of Richard Adley prays the court to review a survey made by Mr. Rodrigues, Government Surveyor, under an Order of the Supreme Court dated 15th February, 1957, in the matter of F. Lloyd-plaintiff-versus Richard Adley-defendant-Suit No. 44 of 1956.

2 The above-named plaintiff and defendant held as owners certain lands adjacent to each other. The plaintiff, as owner, alleged that the defendant had or was about to encroach on her lands therefore, she prayed the court to grant her relief by having their respective boundaries defined.

3 The defendant, with his counsel, appeared at the hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court and agreed that a survey of the lands should be made and the boundaries defined.

4 The plaintiff and defendant consenting the court made an order that the lands in question be surveyed and the boundaries defined.

5 At the request and consent of the said parties, Mr. Rodrigues, a Government Land Surveyor, was appointed to make the survey as provided by law under Article 758 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having completed the survey, and in compliance with the law, Mr. Rodrigues filed a report and plan in the Registry of the Supreme Court and the Registrar thereafter published a notice to the effect in the official Gazette dated 15th March, 1958.

6 The defendant, being dissatisfied, now applies to have the survey reviewed.

7 Mr. Richard Adley, the defendant, hereinafter called the petitioner, filed an ex parte petition, which was set downs for hearing by the Registrar on the 31st May 1958.

8 At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner did not lead any evidence orally or on affidavit or did he produce any documents by way of exhibits, but was content to rely on the facts set out in the petition.

9 The first question the court must determine is whether the application must be inter-parties, in order to have all the interested parties before the court, or whether the relief prayed for can be granted on the ex parte application as filed by the petitioner.

10 Taken at its source, the survey to be reviewed was made on an order of the Supreme Court, which was obtained or granted in a cause or matter inter-parties. The parties being F. Lloyd-plaintiff-and Richard Alley-defendant-now the petitioner.

11 It does appear to be elementary that, in the determination by a court of any cause or matter arising out of or flowing from the aforesaid order of the court, such application should be brought on a petition inter-parties and intituled as in the original suit.

12 The court holds the view that all parties to the said order of the court are entitled as of right to be present and to be heard, if they so desire, when any relief is being sought as a result of something done or an award made or a benefit derived by virtue of the said order.

13 It will be manifestly unjust for the court to hear only one party and then proceed in the absence of the other party to set aside any award or to grant a review or make any pronouncement in favour of that party to the prejudice of the other party.

14 The court considers it just and proper that F. Lloyd, the plaintiff in the original suit and an interested party, should have been made a respondent and a copy of the petition and notice of hearing served on her. This has not been done. Accordingly, the matter is not properly before the court and the...