Peterson Francis v Christopher Hunte et Al

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Pariagsingh, J
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0211-1
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Claim Number: SLUHCV2024/0283 formerly SLUHCV2018/0613

Between:

Peterson Francis

Claimant

and

[1] Christopher Hunte

[2] Choice TV/Mediazone Production Incorporated

Defendants

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice Alvin S. Pariagsingh

Claim Number: SLUHCV2024/0283 formerly SLUHCV2018/0613

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DIVISION

Appearances:

Mr. Horace Fraser for the Claimant

Mr. Leevie Herelle for the Defendants

REASONS

Claimant's Evidential Objections / Application to Strike Court

1 Pariagsingh, J — At the commencement of this trial today, I gave an oral decision on the Claimant's evidential objections and application to strike out and indicated that I would provide fuller reasons later. I now do so.

2 Before the Court is the Claimant's application filed on 21 January 2021, seeking to strike out certain paragraphs of the Defendant's witness statements. The Claimant also seeks to strike out two paragraphs of the Defendant's defence. Both parties have filed written submissions, and I have heard Counsel for the Defendant further on questions which the Court posed arising out of the written submissions. The following are the reasons for my decision:

WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HUNTE:

3 The Claimant seeks to have paragraphs 14 and 17 of this witness statement struck out. The Claimant also seeks to have exhibits CH4, CH5, CH6, CH7, and CH8 struck out.

4

“Nevertheless, I deny the allegation of defamation. It is my firm view that (1) the words that I published and which the Claimant is complaining about are not defamatory and (2) because of their truth, did not and were incapable of defaming the Claimant.”

5 The sentence of this paragraphs is consistent with the pleaded defence. The second sentence is not a fact it is the witness's view. The Claimant can address the weight to be attached to this sentence in the witness statement in submissions. The second part of the second sentence raises the truth of the allegations which the Defendants are not being permitted to pursue as a defence for reasons I will set out later.

6 The part of the second sentence of Paragraph 14 which reads “and (2) because of their truth, did not and were incapable of defaming the Claimant” is accordingly struck out.

7

“In particular, it is true and the tax-paying public has a right to know:-

• 1) The Claimant did in fact find approximately three million in the City Council account(s) upon assuming office. This is confirmed by the Claimant's press conference aired on HTS on the [ ] day of [ ] 2017 (see Exhibit CH4).

• 2) The Claimant did in fact sign cheques on the City Council account(s) and this is/was a major cause for concern. See Minutes of the Statutory Meeting held on 5 December 2017 at paragraph 6 (see Exhibit CH5).

• 3) The Claimant did purchase a vehicle with the use of the City Council's money. This is confirmed under paragraph 7 of the Minutes of the Statutory Meeting held on 5 December 2017 (see Exhibits CH5 and CH6, evidencing cheque payments).

• 4) The Claimant has given Hyman James, aka Mouse, work contracts (see Exhibit CH7).

• 5) Under the premiership of Dr Kenny Anthony, the Claimant was removed as Chairman of the Housing Association.

• 6) The accounts of the City Council deteriorated and are/were in a worse condition than when the Claimant took office and continue to be a major concern for many. See auditor's report dated August 2018 (see Exhibit CH8).”

8 The following reasons are applicable to all documents annexed to this witness statement. Not a single document was disclosed by the Defendant in this matter pursuant to the order for standard disclosure. When asked about the sanction in Rule 28 CPR, Counsel readily accepted that there had been non-compliance and advanced that the Claimant had “notice” of the documents as they were attached to the witness statement.

9 Disclosure serves three main purposes:

• 1) To telegraph what documents are relevant to the issues in a claim.

• 2) To identify from the relevant documents which documents a party is relying on in support of its claim.

• 3) To allow a party to admit or dispute the authenticity of a document and to seek inspection of documents.

10 Disclosure is not merely attaching documents to a statement of case or witness statement. I do not accept or agree with the Defendant that providing “notice” by attaching the documents to the witness statement satisfies disclosure requirements.

11 More importantly, in addition to not disclosing any documents in this case, the Defendant neither identified nor annexed any documents to their defence. When asked about compliance with Rule 10.5(6) CPR (which remained unchanged in the new rules), Counsel for the Defendant made the incredible submission that compliance with this rule is achieved when documents are annexed to a witness statement. That submission is wholly misconceived.

12 The mechanism in the CPR mandates that a litigant must identify or annex any document relevant to their claim. They must then disclose the document, and barring a notice to dispute the authenticity of the document (Rule 28.18 CPR) or other statutory requirements (e.g. a hearsay notice), the document can be put into evidence through a witness or by consent.

13 Allowing the Defendant's documents would amount to trial by ambush. The Claimant would have to deal with documents at trial that are neither referenced in a pleaded case nor disclosed to permit the Claimant to challenge their authenticity.

14 The Defendant had the option of serving a list of documents late or applying for relief from sanctions. This was not pursued.

15 Additionally, the Court has the discretion to grant permission for the documents to be used. Even this option was not utilised, and no such application was made.

16 For these reasons, all of the documents attached to the Defendant's witness statements in this claim are struck out. Some are also struck out for additional reasons, including:

• 1) CH4 – The alleged press conference was referenced but not exhibited to the witness statement filed, nor were the Defendants able to produce it at trial. Furthermore, subparagraph (a) contains missing dates, indicating an incomplete witness statement.

• 2) CH5 – The Minutes of the Statutory Meeting exhibited is not a verified copy. There are several handwritten changes. When asked who made those changes, Counsel for the Defendant was unable to assist. The authenticity of this document was never an issue...