1 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFJUDICATUREOFJAMAICA CLAIMNO:HCV02938OF2006 BETWEEN SHAQUILLEFORBES (Aninfantwhosuesbyhismother andnextfriend,kadinalewis) CLAIMANT AND RALSTONBAKER 1 ST DEFENDANT AND ANDREWBENNET 2 ND DEFENDANT AND THEATTORNEYGENERALOFJAMAICA 3 RD DEFENDANT Mrs.NicoleHaynesinstructedbyKinghornandKinghornfortheClaimant.Mrs.GailMitchell instructedbythedirectorofstateproceedingsforthe2 nd and3 rd Defendants February15,16,18and24;March3and10,2011 FRASERJ. AssessmentofDamages PersonalInjury ProofofSpecialDamages AmendmenttoParticularsofClaimaftercloseofevidence andsubmissions,butbeforejudgment 1. ThesearethereasonsformyjudgmentdeliveredonMarch3,2011. THEBACKGROUNDTOTHECLAIM 2. TheclaimantShaquilleForbeswhoclaimsbyhismotherandnextfriendKadinaLewis,was bornonthe1 st dayofapril2004.onthe15 th dayofapril2005theclaimantwastravelingto Mandevilleinataxidrivenbythe1 st defendantwhenitwasinvolvedinanaccidentwith anothermotorvehiclebeingdrivenbythe2 nd defendant. 3. WhentheclaimwasfirstfiledonAugust16,2006theparticularsaverredthattheownerof thecardrivenbythe2 nd defendantwasonebyronlewiswhowasthenjoinedasthe3 rd defendant.itwassubsequentlydiscoveredthe2 nd defendantisapoliceofficerandthatthe carhewasdrivingisownedbythejamaicaconstabularyforce.
2 4. This discovery led to the amendment of the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim to remove therefrom the name Byron Lewis and substitute therefor as 3 rd defendant, the AttorneyGeneralofJamaica.TheamendedClaimFormandParticularsofClaimwerefiled onapril1,2009.ishallreturnlatertotheissueoftheamendmentstotheparticularsof Claim. Errors were made in that process which required, at the prompting of the court, further amendment after all the evidence and submissions were completed, but before judgment. 5. On April 2, 2009 the Attorney General was served with the amended Claim Form and amendedparticularsofclaim.onfebruary4,2010pursuanttoanordergrantingthe3 rd defendant leave, the 3 rd defendant filed a Defence out of time. The Defence admitted liabilityandwaslimitedtothequantumofdamages. 6. Judgment on admission filed by the claimanton February 18, 2010, was on May 5, 2010 enteredintothejudgmentbookofthesupremecourtatvolume749folio The1 st defendantwasneverservedandwasnotapartytotheassessmenthearing. THEACCIDENTANDITSAFTERMATH 8. Theclaimantatthetimeoftheaccidentwassittingonhismother slapinthebackseatof the taxi. They were seated immediately behind the driver, the 1 st defendant. As they reachedthevicinityofthetropicsviewhotelalongthegreenvalemainroad,themotorcar drivenbythe2 nd defendantwasseentravellingtowardsthemintheoppositedirection.this motorcarmadearightturnimmediatelyinfrontofthetaxiwhichcausedthetwovehicles tocollide. 9. Asaresultofthecollisiontheclaimantwhowasatthetime1yearand14daysold,hithis headononeofthemetalsupportsforthedriver sheadrestandsustaineda6cmlaceration tohisrightforehead. 10. The claimant was taken to the Mandeville Regional Hospital where, as disclosed by the medical report of Dr. Joyce DetervilleThames, received in evidence as exhibit 7, he was treatedbyhavingtheinjurysutured.theclaimantwasadditionallyprescribedtheanalgesic
3 Cetamol and the antibiotic Amoxil. Xrays of the skull, cervical spine, chest, and right shoulderrevealednofractures.theoutcome/prognosiswasexpectedtobegood. 11. The Claimant was taken to Dr. Ansel Gillman on April 20, 2005 and subsequently. The medicalreportofdrgillmandatedaugust9,2010wasreceivedinevidenceasexhibit8and willbediscussedlaterinthejudgment. THECLAIMFORSPECIALDAMAGES 12. Theclaimantinitiallysoughtspecialdamagesof$54,000.00computedasfollows: a. $12,000 for 6 visits to see Dr. Gillman at $2000 per visit. This claim was supportedbyreceiptstenderedandadmittedinevidenceasexhibits1 6and dated respectively 17/1/08; 10/02/08; 04/08/08; 28/08/08; 05/09/08 and 10/09/08.(Theclaimunderthisheadwasreducedto$6,000whencounselfor theclaimantsoughtamendmentstotheparticularsofclaim). b. $36,000fortaxicostsfor6tripstoseeDr.Gillmanat$6000pertrip.Noreceipts weretenderedinsupportofthisclaim. c. $6,000paidintheamountsof$1,500perweekfor4weeksaspaymenttoMs. MerlineForbes,theclaimant spaternalauntwhoprovidedcarefortheclaimant in the absence of Ms. Kadina Lewis, the claimant s mother. No receipts were tenderedinsupportofthisclaim. 13. On the question of special damages counsel for the claimant submitted that the sums claimedwereprovenbythereceiptsandtheevidenceoftheclaimant smotherandwere reasonable. 14. Counselforthedefendantscounteredthatthereceiptsforthevisitstothedoctorcouldnot beinrelationtotheaccidentandthatthesumof$12,000,(laterreducedto$6,000),should be disallowed. She based this submission on the fact that during cross examination the claimant s mother, Ms. Kadina Lewis, indicated that she had taken the claimant to the doctor on dates in 2005 and 2006 but that she didn t have receipts for those visits. The timing of those visits was buttressed by the evidence elicited in reexamination that the tripstothedoctorwereatatimewhensheherselfwasstillsufferingtheilleffectsofthe
4 accidentandhadswollenknees.thereceiptswhichweretenderedwerehoweverallfor datesin2008,threeyearsaftertheincident,visitsonwhichdatescounselfortheclaimant submittedwerenotproventobeinrelationtotheaccident. 15. ThemedicalreportofDrGillmandatedAugust9,2010isactuallyquiteinstructiveonthe matter.thereportundertheheading Complaint indicatesthat Isawthis6yearoldmale patient on April 20 th 2005 for the purpose of this medical report. He was complaining of headacheandpaintotherightforehead (italicsmine).tellingly,inthatreportthedoctor onlyspeakstooneotheroccasiononwhichhesawtheclaimant;statingundertheheading Investigations, Hevisitedofficeonemonthlaterwhenanapproximatesixcm,scarwas seenonhisrightforehead. 16. IhoweveraccepttheevidenceofMs.LewisthatshetooktheclaimanttoDr.Gillmanafter the accident during 2005 and 2006; evidence which was not challenged but relied on by counsel for the defendants. Ms. Lewis further testified that she took the claimant to Dr. Gillmanfrom2005rightthroughto2008forcheckupsaftertheaccidentandthatshetook himtodr.gillmanin2008forheadaches.however,giventhenatureofdr.gillman sreport inwhichhereferencesonlythevisitofapril20,2005andafollowupvisitonemonthlater, thereisnosupportforthecontentionthatthevisitsin2008wereinrelationtotheafter effectsoftheunfortunateaccident.thereforewhileitiscommongroundthattherewere aboutsixtripstodr.gillmanin asaconsequenceoftheaccident,noproofof thecostsoftheseofficevisitsduringthatperiodhasbeenadduced.theclaimfor$12,000 forthisitem,(subsequentlyreducedto$6,000asdiscussedlater),isthereforedisallowed. 17. In relation to the damages claimed for the taxi trips to Dr. Gillman, counsel for the defendantscitedthewellestablishedprincipleinlawfordmurphyv.luthermills(1976)14 JLR119atpage121H.ThereHerculesJ.A.citedwithapprovalthedictumofLordGoddard C.J.inthecaseofBonhamCarterv.HydeParkHotelLimited(3)(1948)64T.L.R.atpage 178wheretheLearnedChiefJusticesaid, "On the question of damages I am left in an extremely unsatisfactory position. Plaintiffsmustunderstandthatiftheybringactionsfordamagesitisforthemto provetheirdamage;itisnotenoughtowritedowntheparticulars, and, so to speak,throwthemattheheadofthecourt,saying:'thisiswhatihavelost;iask youtogivemethesedamages.'theyhavetoproveit."
5 18. Counsel for the defendants however also recognised that this strict principle has been temperedinsomerespectsandcitedthecaseofgrantv.motilalmoonanltdandanother (1988)43WIR372,acasefromtheCourtofAppealofTrinidadandTobago.Inthatcasea cardrivenbythesecondrespondentandownedbythefirstrespondentcrashedintothe houseoftheappellantdamagingseveralarticles.thespecialdamageswereparticularised in the pleadings. No appearance was entered nor defence filed by the respondents. The appellantobtainedjudgmentindefault.attheassessmenthearingbeforethemasterthe appellantproducedalistofthearticlesdamagedandthepricesshehadassignedforeach. Shehadnoreceipts,couldnotstatewhentheyhadbeenpurchasedandadmittedtheyhad notbeenvaluedbyavaluator.therespondentsdidnotchallengetheprices,butsubmitted thereneededtobestrictproofofthevalues.themasterheldthatthevaluehadnotbeen so proved and awarded and ex gratia payment of $6,000. On appeal to the Court of Appeal it was held allowing the appeal, that although special damages must be pleaded, particularisedandprovedstrictly,theappellanthadprimafacieestablishedthecostofthe articles.astherespondentshadnotattemptedtochallengethevaluesplacedonthemthe onlycoursesofactionproperlyopentothemasterweretoaccepttheappellant sclaimin full or to apply her mind judicially to each item and its value; as the values were not unreasonable,theclaimof$22,044forspecialdamagewouldbeallowedinfull. 19. WhilethecaseofGrantcitedbycounselispersuasiveauthoritythereisbindingauthority from the Jamaican Court of Appeal demonstrating that there are circumstances which commend a relaxation of the rule of strict proof.in the well known case of Desmond Walters v Carlene Mitchell (1992) 29 JLR 173 that dealt inter alia with proof of loss of earningswolfej.a.(ag.),(ashethenwas),upheldtheapproachofthetrialjudgewhotook cognisance of evidence from the respondent concerning his loss of earnings without supportingdocumentaryproof.atpage176wolfej.a.opined: There is support for the approach which the judge adopted. At paragraph 1528 of McGregoronDamages12thEditionthelearnedAuthorstates: "However,withproofaswithpleading,theCourtsarerealisticandacceptthatthe particularitymustbetailoredtothefacts:bowen,l.j.,laidthisdownintheleading caseonpleadingandproofofdamage,radcliffev.evans2q.b.524(c.a.).
6 Inrelationtospecialdamagehesaid: The character of the acts themselves which produce the damage and the circumstances under which these acts are done, must regulate the degree of certainty and particularity with which the damage done ought to be proved. As much certainty and particularity must be insisted on in proof of damage as is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances and to the nature of the acts themselvesbywhichdamageisdone.toinsistuponlesswouldbetorelaxoldand intelligible principles. To insist upon more would be the vainest pedantry." (Emphasisadded) Without attempting to lay down any general principle as to what is strict proof, to expect a sidewalk or a push cart vendor to prove her loss of earnings with the mathematicalprecisionofawellorganizedcorporationmaywellbewhatbowen,l.j., referredtoas"thevainestpedantry". This Court observed in S.C.C.A. 18/84 Central Soya Jamaica Ltd. v. Junior Freeman (unreported)perrowe,p.,that: "Incasualworkcasesitisalwaysdifficultforthelegaladviserstoobtainand presentanexactfigureforlossofearningsandalthoughthelossfallstobe dealtwithunderspecialdamages,thecourthastouseitsownexperiencein thesematterstoarriveatwhatisprovedontheevidence." Thisprincipleisnolessapplicabletoaplaintiffinvolvedinthesidewalkvendingtrade. This is a small scale of trading. Persons so involved do not engage themselves in the keeping of books of accounts. They buy, and replenish their stock from each day's transaction. They pay their domestic bills from the day's sale. They provide their children with lunch money and bus fares from the day's sales without regard to accounting. 20. The extract from Walters case while addressing the specific issue of loss of earnings underpinsawiderprinciple.someclaimantswillbeunabletoprovidedocumentaryproofof genuine claims for special damages given the nature of informal business practices they engage in and certain types of day to day transactions they conduct. In such business practicesanddaytodaytransactionsthekeepingofaccountsandtheprovisionofreceipts arenotregularoperationalfeatures.theprincipleinwalter scasehasbeenappliedina numberofcasesincludingbyandersonjintheunreportedcaseofezekielbarclayvclifford SewellCLB241of2000,(July13,2001),bySykesJintheunreportedcaseofOwenThomas vconstablefosterandtheattorneygeneralofjamaicaclt095of1999,(january6,2006), and more recently by Sykes J in the unreported case of Kenroy Biggs v. Courts Jamaica LimitedandPeterThompsonHCV00054/2004,(January22,2010).
7 21. InThomas caseatparagraph17,sykesjdeploredtheviewthat personsofaparticular social class should not be expected to prove special damages strictly. Rather in each situation the correct approach recommended by the learned judge was that,...the particularcircumstancesbeexaminedtoseeifthecaseisanappropriateoneforrelaxation of the strict rule rather than base the decision on perceived habits of different social groups. 22. In the circumstances of the Thomas case, in allowing a claim for transportation costs of $2,500wherenoreceiptswereprovided,SykesJfurtherobservedatparagraph17, Itis well known in Jamaica that many of our transport operators do not provide receipts to passengersandthecostseemsreasonable. 23. In the instant case, applying the reasoning from Thomas, it is well known that many chartered taxis routinely operate without providing receipts. Receipts may sometimes be providedonrequestbutitisclearnosuchrequestwasmadeinthiscase.itisnothardto fathomthatatthetimeoftakingtheclaimanttothedoctorfortreatmentandcheckups, theneedtoobtainreceiptstoprovethatexpenditurewouldnothavebeenuppermostin themindofms.lewis. 24. Tohercreditcounselforthedefendantsdespiteherchallengetotheevidenceofthecosts ofdoctor svisitsin2008acknowledgedthattherewouldhavebeenneedforms.lewisto taketheclaimanttothedoctorin2005to2006.heronlyconcernwastheamountclaimed. Insteadoftheclaimant ssumof$6000perroundtripsheproposedthatasumof$600per roundtripwasmorereasonable. 25. Ihaveconsideredtheevidenceandcontrastingsubmissionsonthispoint.Idonotaccept thatthesumwasintheamountof$6000perroundtripin forajourneywhich ontheevidencetookabout25minutesoneway.howeverthefigureproposedbycounsel forthedefendantsisontheotherhandtoolow,especiallyasms.lewistestifiedthatthe taxiwouldwaitonthemtotakethemonthereturnjourneyhome.inallthecircumstancesi findthatasumof$1,500perroundtripshouldbeallowed.theevidenceisthattherewere sixsuchtrips.thetotalsumallowedunderthisitemistherefore$9,000.
8 26. Theanalysisinrelationtotheclaimforexpensesfortaxisintheabsenceofreceiptsisalso applicabletotheclaimfortheexpensesassociatedwithhiringms.forbesascaregiverfor the claimant.ms. Lewis in her evidence indicated she paid Ms Forbes $3,500 per week, $1,500ofwhichwasfortakingcareoftheclaimant.Ms.Forbesprovidednoreceiptsforthe moneypaid.counselforthedefendantswhiletakingnoissuewiththeabsenceofreceipts, suggestedafigureof$800perweekforthisservicewasmorereasonable. 27. Idonotfindthesumof$1,500perweekunreasonable.Theclaimantwasjustovertheage of one year at the time of the accident and children at one year old require a lot of supervision; moreso a child in the position of the claimant who was recovering from a lacerationtotheforehead.iwillthereforeallowthesumof$1,500forfourweeksyieldinga totalof$6, Thetotalsumallowedforspecialdamagesistherefore$15,000. THECLAIMFORGENERALDAMAGES 29. Mercifullytheinjuryinthiscasewasnotthatserious.Thereisnoevidenceofanylongterm disability.theincidenceoftheclaimanthavingheadachesasabyproductoftheaccident, testifiedtobyms.lewishasnotbeenmedicallyproven. 30. ThelastingdamageprovenisascarwhichIhaveseenandwhichinmyopinionisnotvery unsightly,thoughthereisamedicalrecommendationfromdr.gillmanthatplasticsurgery couldbesoughtto correctthescar Counselfortheclaimantprofferedtwocasestoassistthecourtinarrivingatanappropriate figure.thefirstwasbeverlygriffithsanddelvingriffiths(aminorsuingbyhismotherand next friend Beverly Griffiths) v. Leroy Campbell Suit No C.L 1996 G 123, Khan s Recent PersonalInjuryAwardsmadeintheSupremeCourtofJudicatureofJamaica,Volume4at page153.therethe7yearoldcomplainantsufferedninequiteseriousinjuriesincluding lossofconsciousness,apuncturewoundtothebackoftheheadwithresultingpermanent baldpatch,two4cmlacerationstothefaceeachofwhichcausedapermanentcosmetic disfigurementandwheretherewastheneedforfuturesurgicalintervention.theawardof $220,000(June1997)forpainandsufferingupdatedusingtheConsumerPriceIndex(CPI)
9 forjanuary2011wouldbe$850,207.thiscaseprovidesverylimitedassistance,savethat theawardintheinstantcasewillhavetobeconsiderablylowerasthesoleinjuryinnoway approachestheseriousnessandnumberofinjuriesinthecitedcase. 32. The second case at the low end as submitted by counsel for the claimant is Trevor BenjaminvHenryFordetalHCV02876of2005,(March23,2010).InTrevorBenjaminthe claimant,anadult,wasinvolvedinamotorvehicleaccidentthatcausedhimtosuffersoft tissueinjury,whichfromthediscussioninthecaseappearstohavebeenawhiplashinjury. Theawardof$700,000updatedusingtheJanuary2011CPIis$752,466.Thereishowever nosimilaritybetweenthisandtheinstantcaseeitherintermsofinjuriesortheageofthe partiesinvolvedanditthereforedoesnotassistthecourt. 33. Counsel for the claimant submitted that in light of the evidence and the cited cases an awardof$800,000wouldbeappropriate. 34. Counsel for the defendants also cited two cases to assist the court in arriving at an appropriate award. The first case is Charley Brown v Byron Cummings and Owen Miller CL1989/B0261,(January10,1992),foundatpage61ofAssessmentofDamagesforPersonal InjuriesbyHarrisonandHarrison. 35. In the Charley Brown case, the plaintiff suffered lacerations and abrasions to the face; fracture of the left mandible and left cheekbone; and multiple abrasions over the body, includingtheupperandlowerlimbs.therewasalsopermanentdeformityoftheleftsideof thefaceanddisabilityofthefunctionofthejaw.theawardof$50,000updatedusingthe January2011CPIis$639,481.Thecasewascitedbycounselinrelationtothelacerations andabrasionstothefaceandcounselsubmittedthattheextentoftheotherinjuriesshould maketheawardintheinstantcasemuchlower. 36. ThesecondcaseRaymondShawvMichaelGordonCL1989/S037,(July23,1992)extracted on the same page of Harrison and Harrison as the previous case, discloses injuries as follows:traumatothefacewhichresultedinlacerationstothecheek,forehead,chinand neckandalsothroatirritationandhoarseness.theawardinthiscasewas$25,000which updatedis$252,254.thiswashoweveraconsentjudgmentandthecourtisacutelyaware of the limited guidance consent judgments can provide in influencing awards made in
10 contested matters. The fact that undisclosed and varied considerations may influence consentawardsalwayshastobeborneinmindandthismakesthengenerallyunsuitableto bereliedonwithoutreservationasprecedents. 37. Counselforthedefendantssubmittedthatanawardof$350,000wouldbeappropriatein theinstantcase. 38. Havingconsideredthenatureoftheinjuryinthiscaseandthoseinthecasescited,Ifind thattheinjuriesinthebeverleygriffithsandcharleybrowncasesaremoreserious,(inthe caseofbeverleygriffithssignificantlymoreso),thanthatintheinstantcase.thoughthe lacerationsintheraymondshawcasearemoreinnumberthereisnoindicationastotheir size and whether any permanent cosmetic disfigurement was resultant as in the instant case. In any event I have already noted the caution the court should exercise in placing relianceontheraymondshawcase,itbeingaconsentaward. 39. Having considered all the evidence, the submissions and the cases cited I find that the appropriateawardforpainandsufferinginthiscaseshouldbe$400,000. AMENDMENTTOTHEPARTICULARSOFCLAIM 40. Before outlining the final order there is one issue which remains to be addressed. I indicatedattheoutsetofthisjudgment,underthesectiondealingwiththebackgroundto theclaim,thatiwouldreturntotheissueoftheamendmentssoughttotheparticularsof Claim. 41. Theneedfortheamendmentarosethroughwhatwasclearlyaclericaloradministrative error. In the motor vehicle accident in which the claimant was injured, his mother Ms. Kadina Lewis who brought this claim as the claimant s next friend was also injured. She pursuedaseparateclaimonherownbehalf.inthepreparationoftheamendedparticulars of Claim for this matter inadvertently the particulars of her injuries and special damages wereappendedinsteadofthoseoftheclaimantherein. 42. Asindicatedearlierthiserrorwasnotdiscovereduntilaftertheevidenceandsubmissions werecompleted.itwasthennotedbythecourtandbroughttotheattentionofcounsel.of significanceisthefactthatalltheevidence thewitnessstatementofms.lewisreceived
11 as her evidence in chief, and the medical reports and receipts for medical expenses tenderedandadmittedinevidenceasexhibits correctlyrelatetotheclaimant.thecross examinationbycounselforthedefendantsalsofocussedontheitemsofspecialdamages sought to be proven in relation to the claimant: namely his medical expenses; transportation costs; and the costsof his home care. The court invited submissions from counselontheissueofthenecessaryamendments. 43. Counsel for the claimant filed a Notice of Intention to Amend Particulars of Claim on February17,2011.Theamendmentssoughtcorrectlyreflectedtheinjurytotheclaimant butunderspecialdamagesonlysoughtdamagesformedicalexpenseswhichcuriouslywere reducedto$6,000fromthefigureof$12,000whichreceiptshadbeenprofferedtosupport. Thisreductionwasultimatelyofnosignificancehowever,giventhatasrecordedearlierin thisjudgment,idisallowedanysumformedicalexpenses.counselfortheclaimantduring submissions made an oral application to add particulars of claim in relation to the sums claimedfortransportation($36,000)andforcareprovidedfortheclaimantforfourweeks ($6,000). 44. CounselfortheclaimantreliedontheauthoritiesofPeterSalmonvMasterBlendsFeeds LtdC.L.1991S163,(October26,2007);GloriaMooYoungandErleMooYoungvGeoffrey Chong, Dorothy Chong and Family Foods (In Liquidation) SCCA 117 of 1999, (March 23, 2000); and Leeman Anderson v The Attorney General & Christopher Burton CLA017 of 2002(July16,2004). 45. Counselfortheclaimantsubmittedthatbasedontheauthoritiesandthecircumstancesin this case the amendment should be allowed as no prejudice would be suffered by the defendants. No issue of prejudice arose as the correct injury was noted in the medical reports attached to the Notices of Intention to Tender in Evidence Hearsay Statements madeindocumentsfiledonjuly12andaugust26,2010.thedefendantsweretherefore nottakenbysurpriseandinfactthecorrectmedicalreportshadbeentenderedinevidence withoutbeingchallengedbythedefendants. 46. Further, it was submitted that the application was made in good faith and allowing the amendmentssoughtwouldnotaffecttheissuesfordeterminationbeforethecourt.the
12 amendmentswouldnotyieldtotheclaimantanunexpectedadvantagenorwouldtheyin anywayaffectthedefencebeingadvanced.thecourtwasalsoaskedtotakenoteofthe factthatcounseloneithersidehadsubmittedonthequestionofdamagesbasedoni)the contentofthecorrectmedicalreports;andii)itemsofrelevantspecialdamagesoughtto beproveninevidence.thesubmissionswerenotbasedontheinjuriesandspecialdamages erroneouslynotedinthepleadings. 47. Counselforthedefendantsdidnotresisttheapplicationtoamendtheparticularsofinjuries and of special damages. Counsel however rested on her submissions outlined earlier in whichthesumsclaimedfortheitemsofspecialdamage,(medicalexpenses,transportation costsandcostsofhomecare),werechallenged. 48. Thoughtheamendmentswerenotresisted,thecourthastoensurethattheamendments shouldproperlybegranted.thepowerforthecourttopermitamendmentstoastatement ofcaseinasituationsuchasthisisgovernedbyrule20.4(2)ofthecivilprocedurerules 2002 as amended in This rule provides that Statements of case may only be amendedafteracasemanagementconferencewiththepermissionofthecourt. 49. InthePeterSalmoncaseoneoftheissueswaswhetherthewrithavingbeenfiledwithin thelimitationperiod,butthelimitationperiodhavingnowexpired,anamendmentshould be allowed to the particulars of injuries. Sykes J relying on the decision of the court of appealinjudithgodmarvciboneygrouplimiteds.c.c.a.144of2001judgmentdelivered July 3, 2003, made a distinction between an amendment that disclosed more about an injury pleaded during the limitation period and one that sought to make a claim for an injurywhichhadnotbeenpleadedwithinthelimitationperiod.basedonthatdistinction the learned judge allowed the amendments which merely provided more details of the injuries pleaded but disallowed one amendment which sought to add an injury that appearedtobenew. 50. In the Godmar case, the claimant applied to add a new claim for post traumatic stress disorder which she alleged flowed from the defendant s tortious act. She also sought to includeadditionalsumsasspecialdamages.thecourtofappealallowedtheamendment soughtforspecialdamagesbeingthecostoffurthertreatmentforinjuriespleadedduring
13 thelimitationperiod,butdisallowedtheclaimforposttraumaticstressdisorder,holding thatitwasaclaimforanewinjurybeingmadeaftertheexpirationofthelimitationperiod. 51. Intheinstantcasetheinjuryintheproposedamendmentis new,(atleastinrelationto the3 rd defendantwhowasonlyeverservedwiththeincorrectamendedclaimform),inthat the amendment seeks to substitute the injury suffered by the claimant for that of the injuriessufferedbyhismotherandnextfriend,inadvertentlypleadedduetoaclericalor administrative error. The limitation period has however not expired, the injury having occurredonthe15 th April2005.Thefactthattheinjuryisnewisthereforenobartothe amendment.asthespecialdamages followtheinjury thespecialdamageswouldalsobe newly pleaded. However utilizing the same reasoning as that applied in relation to the injury,asthelimitationperiodhasnotpassed,thefactthattheyarenewwouldnotbyitself defeattheamendmentssought. 52. ThecaseofLeemanAndersonvTheAttorneyGeneralandChristopherBurtonCLA017of 2002(July16,2004)wasreliedonbytheclaimantforthepropositionthatgiventheextent ofthedisclosureintheinstantcasethedefendantwouldnothavebeentakenbysurprisein relationtothenatureofthecasethatwastobemet. 53. In Leeman s case Sykes J (Ag.) as he then was, had to consider whether a claim for exemplary damages was adequately pleaded in the section of the pleadings headed ParticularsofExemplaryDamages whichreadinpart, theaforesaidactionsofthesecond Defendant werearbitraryandoppressive.inthecaseoftheattorneygeneral&another v Noel Gravesandy (1982) 19 JLR 501 reviewed in Leeman s case it was observed that a claimforexemplarydamagesmustbespecificallypleadedtogetherwiththefactsreliedon ifsuchaclaimweretosucceed.inleeman scasesykesj(ag.)opinedthat,theadjective aforesaid couldonlybereferringtoparagraph4wheretheclaimantallegedthathewas beatenupwithoutreasonableorprobablecause. ThelearnedJudgethereforeconcluded, ThestandardofGravesandyhasbeenmet.SykesJ(Ag.)howeverwentontoobserveat page12ofthejudgmentthat,asthewitnessstatementofmr.andersonmadeitveryclear whathewascomplainingabout, Iwouldhavebeenpreparedtoholdthatthedefendants hadnoticeoftheclaimforexemplarydamagesaswellasthefactsbeingreliedonifithad
14 happenedthatthestatementofclaimhadonlytheclaimforexemplarydamagesbutdid notpleadthefactsbeingreliedon. 54. In arriving at this position Sykes J (Ag.) relied on the following dicta of Lord Woolf MR considering the impact of the new rules in the defamation case of McPhilemy v Times NewspapersLimited3AllER775at792793: The need for extensive pleadings including particulars should be reduced by the requirement that witness statements are now exchanged. In the majority of proceedingsidentificationofthedocumentsuponwhichapartyrelies, together with copiesofthatparty'switnessstatements,willmakethedetailofthenatureofthecase the other side has to meet obvious. This reduces the need for particulars in order to avoidbeingtakenbysurprise.thisdoesnotmeanthatpleadingsarenowsuperfluous. Pleadings are still required to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advancedbyeachparty.inparticulartheyarestillcriticaltoidentifytheissuesandthe extent of the dispute between the parties. What is important is that the pleadings shouldmakeclearthegeneralnatureofthecaseofthepleader.thisistruebothunder theoldrulesandthenewrules. 55. Iftheamendmentintheinstantcasenotbeensoughtwithinthelimitationperioditwould haverequiredconsiderationofwhetherornottheobservationsofsykesj(ag.)inleeman s caseandoflordwoolfmrinmcphilemy scase,could,inthepeculiarcircumstancesofthe instant case, have been successfully relied on. That consideration would have been necessary particularly in light of the principle outlined in the Peter Salmon and Godmar cases,whichprohibitsamendmentsthatseektoinsertnewclaimsaftertheexpirationof the limitation period. As such contemplation is not necessary for a decision on the application,itwillnotbepursued. 56. The case of Gloria Moo Young is not of particular assistance as there the amendment soughtandobtainedbytherespondentswasheldbythecourtofappealtohavebeenin bad faith and an attempt to adjust the defence to meet the evidence given by the appellants.nosuchallegationofbadfaithorof remodelingtheclaim hasbeenmadein the instant case.all parties proceeded on the basis of the case they thought had been pleadedbutinadvertentlyhadnot.theamendmentsprayedsoughttoalignthepleadings withthecasepresentedbytheclaimantwhichcasehadbeenanticipatedandengagedby thedefendants.
15 57. An authority not cited by the claimant but which is of assistance to the court is that of RohanCollinsandSoniaCollinsvWilbertBretton(onbehalfofClaudetteDavisBonnick) E227 of 2002, (May 26, 2003). In Collins case the respondent and the 1 st applicant had come before the court on a Vendor and Purchaser Summons requesting a number of declarations. The 2 nd applicant did not appear and the 1 st applicant appeared in person withouthiscounsel.timewasallowedforthe1 st applicanttoenquireastothereasonfor his counsel s absence, but no reason was advanced. The 1 st applicant had also filed no affidavit in response. The court took the view there was no good reason for an adjournmentandrequiredthe1 st applicanttoproceedonhisownbehalf.attheendofthe respondent s case the 1 st applicant did not produce an affidavit nor did he give oral evidence,whichhadtheeffectofclosinghiscase. 58. OnthefollowingdayMay7,2003the1 st applicantfiledanoticeofchangeofattorneyand an application under Part II of the Civil Procedure Rules 2002 requesting permission to present a response to the court on the basis that his failure to be ready was due to his inabilitytopayhispreviousattorneywhichwasacircumstanceoutsideofhiscontrol.the 1 st applicantalsofiledanaffidavitinresponsetothesummonsandwasthusnowreadyto proceed. 59. JonesJ(Ag.),(ashethenwas),viewedtheissueasanalogoustoanapplicationtoamend pleadings (statements of case) prior to the making of a final order.the learned judge recognizedthat,asdictatedbyrule1.2,theexerciseofhisdiscretionhadtobegovernedby the overriding objective under rule 1.1, that of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. ThelearnedjudgereliedonthecaseofCharlesworthvRelayRoadsLimited 4AllER397inwhichNeubergerJatpage401highlightedthatonanapplicationtoamenda statementofcaseortocallevidenceforwhichpermissionisrequired,assessmentofthe justiceofthecaseinvolvedtwocompetingfactors.firstly,thatitisdesirablethatapartyis allowedtoadvanceeverypointhereasonablydesirestoputforward,sothathedoesnot believehehassufferedinjusticeespeciallyifthedecisiongoesagainsthim.ifanydamage suffered by the opposing party may be compensated by costs a powerful case would normally be made out for the amendment to be allowed. Secondly, the court had to
16 consider whether the success of an application to amend or to call new evidence would interfere with the administration of justice and the interests of other litigants who had caseswaitingtobeheard. 60. Havingweighedthecompetinginterests,JonesJ(Ag.)helditwasintheinterestofjusticeto permit the 1 st applicant to put in his evidence and make submissions in advance of judgment. However, having concluded that the applicants conduct amounted to unreasonableandprejudicialconductdeservingofanextremesanction,thelearnedjudge orderedthatcostsbepaidwithin10daysofthedateoftheorder,otherwisetheapplication wouldbedismissed. 61. The Collins case is helpful. It clearly demonstrates by analogy the principle that, in an appropriate case, amendments can be permitted even when all that remains is for judgmenttobedelivered. 62. HavingreviewedtheauthoritiesIfinditwasindeedappropriatethattheapplicationwas notresistedgiventhereasonsoutlinedinthesubmissionsofcounselfortheclaimantand thejurisprudencewhichhasdevelopedinthisarea.thedefendantswereinnowaymisled concerningthenatureoftheevidencetobereliedon.counselforthedefendantscross examinedms.lewisinsomedetailconcerningthewayinwhichtheinjurytotheclaimant was sustained, as well as the circumstances surrounding the incurring of the medical expenses,transportationandcaregivercostsclaimed.theamendmentsoughtwasmerely to ensure that the particulars of claim accurately reflected the particulars of injury and specialdamagesonwhichallpartieswerefocusedthroughoutthehearing. 63. Theamendmentsthereforedidnotyieldtotheclaimantanyunexpectedadvantagenordid they in any way prejudice the defence being advanced. The amendments sought are thereforeallowed.havingnotfoundtheconductoftheclaimanttobe unreasonableand prejudicial aswasthefindinginthecollinscase,thecourtdoesnotconsideritappropriate topenalizetheclaimantincostsfortheamendmentssoughtandgranted.
17 CONCLUSION 64. Theclaimanthasnotsucceededinestablishingmostofthespecialdamagesclaimedasthe sum for medical expenses has been disallowed and the transportation costs allowed are greatlyreducedfromtheamountadvanced.thegeneraldamagesawardedreflectthefact that the sole injury is not that serious, no permanent disability has resulted and the cosmeticdisfigurementcausedrelativelyminor.theamendmentssoughttotheparticulars of Claim are granted, they being necessary for the fair disposition of the matter and no injusticebeingoccasionedtothedefendantsthereby. 65. ThecourtthereforemadethefollowingOrderonMarch3,2011: a. Amendment granted in terms of Notice of Intention to Amend Particulars of Claim filed on February 17, 2011 and oral application to amend Particulars of SpecialDamagesmadeonFebruary18,2011; b. SpecialDamagesawardedinthesumof$15,000withinterestattherateof6% perannumfromapril15,2005tojune21,2006andattherateof3%perannum fromjune22,2006tomarch3,2011; c. General Damages (Pain and Suffering) awarded in the sum of $400,000 with interestattherateof3%perannumfromapril2,2009tomarch3,2011; d. Coststotheclaimanttobeagreedortaxed.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ANUHCVAP2010/0033 EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: BROWN S BAY RESORT LTD and Appellant LUCA POZZONI Before: The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste The
SOG/DGL, CH, JB Page 1 of 6 Automobile Negligence Lawsuits Who Is Sued? Driver the driver is the person whose negligence gives rise to the liability. The person suing must prove that the driver negligently
 JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
1 COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KAMRUP :: GUWAHATI Present :- B J Mahanta Member, MACT Kamrup, Guwahati MAC Case No. 881 of 2011 Md Surjat Ali Claimant Versus 1 Sri Sameswar Barman (Driver of
1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 46854/2009 DATE: 29/04/2011 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE REPORTABLE: YES/NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
 JMCA Civ 43 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 37/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA BETWEEN: ANUHCV2006/0026 ANITA TOBITT AND GRAND ROYAL ANTIGUAN BEACH RESORT LIMITED Claimant AND STANFORD FREDERICK
Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Scope of Rule 60A 60A.01(1) This Rule is divided into four parts and it provides procedure for each of the following: (c) (d) protection of a child, and other purposes,
IN THE HIGH COURT of FIJI AT LABASA, CIVI JURISDICTION Civil Action No: 52/09 BETWEEN: PRATAP CHAND of Buca, Savusavu. PLAINTIFF AND: MASTER BUILDERS & JOINERY LIMITED a limited liability company having
Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES Last Amended: 1 July 2006 Manual of Legal Aid TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6B - STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES GENERAL...3 PROVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE...3 GENERAL GUIDELINES
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH
Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.
 JMSC CIV. 139 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2009 HCV 04450 BETWEEN AND MORAIN HURST (b.n.f. CARLTON HURST) WEBSTER RADWAY CLAIMANT DEFENDANT Carleen
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation
NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY SPECIAL CIVIL A GUIDE TO THE COURT Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Special Civil Part Special Civil A Guide to the Court page 1 Special Civil is a court of limited jurisdiction
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEVE OTTO, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : COMMERCE STREET : NO. 12-2472 CAPITAL, et al. : MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOW, this 29th
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 Date: 20160105 Docket: Hfx No. 241129 Registry: Halifax Between: Cindy June Webber v. Plaintiff Arthur Boutilier and Dartmouth Central
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA HCVAP 2012/026 IN THE MATTER of an Interlocutory Appeal and IN THE MATTER of Part 62.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules BETWEEN: CHRISTIAN
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION If you were injured or provided treatment for an injury and filed a claim under your Allstate Med Pay coverage, and were compensated in an amount
Page 1 of 5 Case Name: Sousa v. Akulu Between Sousa, and Akulu et al  O.J. No. 3061 36 C.P.C. (6th) 158 150 A.C.W.S. (3d) 320 2006 CarswellOnt 4640 Court File No. 05-CV-282383PD 3 Ontario Superior
MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook Introductory note. These are the Model Directions for use in the first Case Management Conference in clinical
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KAUFFMAN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4264 v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. and WILLIAM F. JINES, Defendants. MEMORANDUM
Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized
Evidentiary Issues in Domestic Cases: An Overview Introduction A. Importance of legal representation in cases that involve domestic violence. B. History of protection order laws and implications for evidence.
Storm Damage Arbitration Agreement ADR Systems File # Insurance Claim # x I. Parties A. xxxxx B. xxxxx II., Time and Location of the Arbitration : Time: Location: III. Rules Governing the Arbitration Each
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,
Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 3279 (QB) Case No: HQ09X03020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 20/11/2012 Before : THE HONOURABLE
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CLAIM NO. SVGHCV2010/0125 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Peter Douglas Claimant and Sean Roberts Maurice O Garro Defendant Appearances:
FEDINAS & OTHERS vs FAYAQ & OCTAGON INSURANCE (18.6.2015) DJ Shepherd, Leeds County Court. Introduction 1. One might have thought with the intense scrutiny that has been brought to bear upon the proportionality
REPRESENTING YOURSELF AND YOUR BUSINESS IN MAGISTRATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION Business is rife with conflict. To succeed, a business owner must be adept at resolving these disputes quickly and efficiently.
Date: 20080219 Docket: CI 07-01-50371 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Pickering v. The Government of Manitoba et al Cited as: 2008 MBQB 56 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) COUNSEL: ) THERESA
COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants
CHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd July 2014 Issue: 025 Part 36 As can be seen from the case of Supergroup Plc v Justenough Software Corp Inc [Lawtel 30/06/2014] Part 36 is still the subject of varying interpretations.
Document Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: ) ) TANITA M. CAIN, ) Case No. 13-04056-TOM-7 ) Debtor. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2010 CLAIM NO. 195 of 2009 JAMES LIGHTBURN (deceased) represented herein by his duly appointed personal representative Mr. Hubert Elrington CLAIMANT AND LIONEL HAMILTON
This leaflet is designed to provide you with a brief outline of the practice and procedure of the High Court and the District Court on taxation of costs in civil proceedings. You should read Order 62 of
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
JUDICIAL BRANCH MEMORANDUM To: Attorneys; Legal Assistants; Litigants From: Patricia A. Lenz, Superior Court Administrator Julie W. Howard, Strafford Superior Court Clerk Date: Updated December 16, 2013
- The Defendant Costs Specialists Costs Law Update Lamont v Burton The Court of Appeal s decision last week in Lamont v Burton  EWCA Civ 429 is likely to have serious costs implications for defendants
Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018
RULE 42 EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE AT TRIAL Application (1) This rule does not apply to summary trials under Rule 19, except as provided in that rule. Witness to testify orally (2) Subject to any Act, statute
Page 1 IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOLAGHAT PRESENT: Smti. I. Barman, A.J.S. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, Assam MAC CASE NO.133/2009 (Under Section 166 of the
NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY SMALL CLAIMS Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Special Civil Part Small Claims Section Small Claims page 1 The small claims section is a court in which you can sue a person
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Case No: 04/29811 In the matter between: THUSO MATHEWS MATSIPE Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant MEYER, J  On 10 August 2002, the plaintiff, who was a
AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. L021060 Vancouver Registry Between: And: DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Plaintiff Defendant
Constables Central Committee How to take a small claim to the County Court. POLICE FEDERATION OF ENGLAND AND WALES CONSTABLES CENTRAL COMMITTEE 19 Langley Road Surbiton Surrey KT6 6LP INTRODUCTION Small
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON FILED July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY Shelby County Chancery Court CORPORATION, No. 108770-1 R.D. Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Plaintiff/Appellant.
Making a cross border claim in the EU serving the community through the administration of justice Using the European Order for Payment procedure or the European Small Claims procedure Version: 2.0 Date
Title XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter 768.28 Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification;
Accidents at Work Everything you need to know Falling from ladders, slipping on a wet floor, lifting a heavy item, cutting yourself on a machine. Even in the 21st Century the workplace is still dangerous
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other
JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 SMALL CLAIMS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ***EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
Form: Plaintiff's original petition-wrongful Death [Name], PLAINTIFF vs. [Name], DEFENDANT [ IN THE [Type of Court] COURT [Court number] PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 1. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.1 Plaintiff
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
 JMSC Civ 85 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2007 HCV 05051 BETWEEN PAULA WHYTE CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FIRST DEFENDANT AND SOUTH EAST REGIONAL HEALTH
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NUMBER SLUHCV 2002/0329 BETWEEN: AUDLYN FADLIEN Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant Appearances: Mr. Hilford Deterville
NSW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION SUPPORTS LITIGATION FUNDING MARKET Introduction 1. The New South Wales Court of Appeal, in a unanimous Judgment on Thursday 31 March 2005, sent some clear messages to legal
PRACTICE GUIDELINES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Attorneys Practicing Before Me And Other Interested Persons C. Timothy Corcoran, III United States Bankruptcy Judge DATE: January 3, 2000 1 RE: Sample Bankruptcy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 14-23 Revised Case Management Plan for the Domestic Relations Branch WHEREAS, the 2013-2017 Strategic Plan of the District of Columbia Courts,
MIB Uninsured Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made on the 3rd July 2015 between the SECRETARY OF STATE ( the Secretary of State ) and the MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU ( MIB ), whose registered office is for the time
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO: 571 OF 1998 BETWEEN: Halley Glasgow Plaintiff and Cameron Veira And Veira Agencies Ltd Defendant Appearances: Mr.. Joseph Delves
Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction
Clark County District Court SMALL CLAIMS COURT INFORMATION INTRODUCTION The Small Claims Department of District Court allows a person or business with a legal dispute to sue without hiring an attorney.
Frequently asked questions Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents Stage 3 Q72. Will paper hearings be allowed for child claims? A72. No. All child claims will require an oral hearing.
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.111 OF 1996 BETWEEN: JAIMASON SAMUEL acting herein by his next friend CALVERT SAMUEL Plaintiff and Appearances: Ms Zenga Horne for
Case:-cv-0-LHK Document Filed0// Page of ERIC F. HARTMAN, ESQ. (SB # 0) LAW OFFICE OF ERIC F. HARTMAN 00 S. FIRST STREET, #0 SAN JOSE, CA. (0) - / Fax (0) -00 Attorney for Specially Appearing Defendant,
BEFORE THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS Present: Mr. V.K.Chandak,A.J.S, Member M.A.C.T., Goalpara TRIBUNAL:GOALPARA M.A.C. Case No. 296/08 Sri Bhupen Ch. Barman -Vs- 1. The Divisional Manager, Oriental
May, 2011 FRCP and Physician Testimony: Treating Physicians, Experts, and Hybrid Witnesses The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, rules on these matters in the case of Goodman v. Staples the Office Superstore,
LC 0 Regular Session // (TSB/ps) D R A F T SUMMARY Provides that insurer that has duty to defend insured against claim has fiduciary duty toward insured if insurer does defend against claim. Provides that
Alberta Rules of Court 390/68 R754-757 Part 57 Rules and Orders Promulgated under the Winding-up Act (1) Petition to Wind Up Company Title of petition 754 Every petition for the winding up of any company
FURR & HENSHAW 1900 Oak Street, P.O. Box 2909 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Phone: (843) 626-7621 and 1534 Blanding Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 252-4050 YOUR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE The purpose of