The High Court case filed by Dr Maria Agard came in for some harsh criticism from Justice Olson Alleyne when he delivered judgment on Friday last dismissing the suit brought by her as claimant.
Agard, the Member of Parliament for Christ Church West had filed a suit against chairman of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Mia Mottley and general secretary Jerome Walcott, challenging her expulsion from the party back in November of 2015.
In his ruling on Friday in Court No. 11 of the Supreme Court, Justice Alleyne criticised the claim referring to several procedural mishaps which led to the case being thrown out.
Agard was represented by Hal Gollop, QC along with Lynette Eastmond and Kara-Je Kellman.
Mottley was represented by Leslie Haynes QC and Lionel Roberts; while Dr Jerome Walcott was represented by Roger Forde QC and Michelle Shepherd.
In his 50-page decision, Justice Alleyne said they were “multiple procedural breaches of substance”.
“Each case turns on its own facts. In this case, there are multiple procedural breaches of substance, in addition to the use of the wrong claim form and there is nothing to suggest that the claimant would be without further access to the court if her claim is struck out. I must add that there ought to have been no doubt as to what type of form the claimant was required to employ,” he pointed out.
“The claimant has committed a number of other procedural breaches. The catalogue of errors consists the use of an incorrect claim form; the improper use of an affidavit; the failure to set out a short description of the nature of the claim; the failure to state the capacity in which the defendants were being sued in the body of the claim form; the failure to disclose a reasonable ground for bringing the claim against either defendant; the use of inappropriate headings that are apt to confuse; and the existence of deficient and unclear paragraphs in the section captioned Statement of Claim, Justice Alleyne further added.
The High Court judge contended that even though the claimant was allowed “a second bite of the cherry” that effort too was littered with errors.
“In considering this matter, I have taken account also that the claimant has had a second bite at the proverbial cherry. She filed an amended FDCF [fix date claim form], albeit without leave. I have heard no submissions on it but the record speaks for itself. That document was filed to remedy admitted defects in the FDCF.
“However, as counsel for the defendants submitted, it maintains many of the flaws that characterised the original document. It remains the wrong mode of commencement; it does not set out a short description of the nature of the claim; it does not state in its body the capacity in which the defendants are sued; it contains the same internal headings that are apt to confuse; and it reproduces an incoherent paragraph already the subject of complaint. Additionally, it invites unguided references to the claimant’s affidavit for some of its intended contents,” Justice Alleyne noted.
“I have already concluded that the claim is not properly established against the defendants in a representative capacity as was the stated intention of the claimant, and that for that reason alone the proceedings cannot go forward. Were this the only defect, I might have considered whether I should stay the proceedings and set a date by which they would be struck out if the claimant had not by then made the requisite CPR 21 application. But, this matter is rather more complex.” (RB)
