Williams v A.G. et Al

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Peterkin, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1978
• Neutral Citation: LC 1978 CA 2
• Date: 27 February 1978
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1977

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J., Peterkin, J.A., Nedd, J.A. (Ag)

Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1977

Williams

and

A.G. et al

Appearances:

Appellant in person.

L. Williams, Attorney General for the respondents Nos. 1,2,4 and 5.

T. Cozier holding watching brief for No. 3 respondent.

Practice and procedure - Defences — Striking out — Refusal a valid exercise of judge's discretion.

Peterkin, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against the decision of Renwick, J. made in Chambers an 29th July, 1977, refusing an application by the appellant to strike out the defences of the first and second-named respondents, pursuant to Order 24., rule 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, for failure to comply with an Order of the Court for inspection of documents.

2 The following are the facts and circumstances:–

3 On 18th November, 1976, the appellant applied to the court (for orders (i) that the first and second-named respondents serve him with a list of documents within 7 days, and (ii) that there be inspection of documents within 7 days of the service of the list. The appellant went to the Court for production of the list of documents to be used by the other side, and for an order to inspect them. On 15th December, 1976, an order was made in terms of the Summons. On 7th January, 1977, after the respondents had failed to comply with the order of the court, the appellant applied for an order that the defences of the respondents named be struck out. On 17th January the respondents served the appellant with a list of documents, and a notice to inspect, and on 19th January, at the hearing of the appellant's application to strike out the defences, the Judge made the following order:

“That inspection ordered on Monday, 31st January, 1977, at the Attorney-General's Chambers. No order need be drawn up.”

4 According to the appellant, he went to the Attorney-General's Chambers at about 11.30 a.m. on 31st January, and was shown a number of documents. He noticed that some of the documents produced were not on the list, while there were others on the list which were not produced. He also noticed that the documents were not numbered or marked in any way to enable them to be identified by reference to the numbers set out on the list. He asked for documents 2, 5 and 12 on the list and was told that they were in files in the Government Office upstairs. He further stated that he wished to make a copy of document No. 13 and was told that he could only see the document and not copy it. The appellant complained that the respondents had in effect, failed to comply with the order of the court made on 19th January for inspection. He therefore by Summons dated 9th March, 1977, applied to the court for an order striking out the defences of the first and second-named respondents. On 29th July, 1977, the judge made the following order: –

“THIS MATTER coming up for hearing on the twenty-seventh day of April, the fourth day of May, and the twenty-ninth day of July one thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven; and

5 UPON READING the Summons and the affidavits filed by the plaintiff;

AND UPON HEARING the plaintiff in person and counsel for the defendants THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SAINT LUCIA AND COLIN BEADON also known as COLIN DEATON,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

• 1. That copies of such documents as the defendants THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SAINT LUCIA and COLIN BEADON also known as COLIN DEATON intend to rely on at the hearing, be served on the plaintiff on or before 31st August 1977; and

• 2. That this matter be listed for next Call Over Day when a date for the hearing will be allotted;…”

6 In his written decision at pages 5 and 6 of the record the judge found that some of the documents were available...