← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

If the analysis of our leading political correspondent is to be accepted, it appears Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart, who is said to be a student of history, is loath to make important political decisions  during the Yuletide Season because of a fear of having to suffer the wrath of a Christian nation.  In his Sunday article, Albert Brandford opined that Prime Minister Stuart would have observed how Barbadians reacted to former Prime Minister Arthur’s announcement of a general election date in December 2007. To support Brandford’s position the local press reported today the candidate to contest the St. John bye-election will be known on January 2, 2012.

Barbados Underground regrets that another decision of significant national import continues to be influenced by political  demagoguery; or so it seems. The appointment of former Chief Justice David Simmons was also fraught with controversy. BU agreed with many at the time who believed the decision to appoint a politician of current vintage to the post of Chief Justice, smacked of insensitivity and signalled a dangerous intervention by the Executive into the realm of the independent arm of  the Judiciary. Yet again Barbados finds itself in a shroud of controversy carping the appointment of one of the most important positions in our system of governance. The suspicion that Prime Minster Stuart maybe weighing political considerations with the appointment of Marston Gibson at a time when our judicature is labouring to dispense justice is unfortunate. The adage ‘justice delayed, is justice denied’ has become a common characterization of our Court System in recent years.

A common concern resonating from Barbadians posted on BU is the difficulty of filing and managing small claims matters in our Courts. It is no secret the Barbados Court System is designed to make it mandatory for lawyers to be involved in the most routine matters. While such an arrangement will favour lawyers with the opportunity to earn fees, it serves as a deterrent for ordinary Barbadians who would turn to the Court, as Ralph Thorne QC recently recommended, to seek redress. How can we have justice if a large part of the populace believes it is not a ready option to seek justice?

Former Chief Justice David Simmons promised on assuming office to modernized and make our Judicature more efficient. Yes he has left a nice building on Whitepark Road, we hear talk about institutionalizing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) but have ordinary Barbadians benefited from having a system of justice which provides a timely*solution to their problems. We say no!

In the United Kingdom  the use of the Internet to create a system which caters to small claims matters for a filing fee between £25 and £100 provides a good model for Barbados to follow. If a claim is less than £100, 000 and against no more than two people, Money Claim Online can be used as a legitimate tool in Her Majesty’s Court System in the UK to seek redress.

Given our boast to having a heavy Internet penetration, one is left to ask why are Barbadians being denied the opportunity to seek justice by accessing a similar system. Our Court System should efficiently cater to all Barbadians, the haves and the haves nots. It is time for Barbadians, supported by key stakeholders, to speak up! A democracy can only prosper if we the people fully participate.

This is a call to Chief Justice Designate Gibson to pick this low hanging fruit which can go along way to ensuring the local Judicature dispenses justice in a more equitable manner. President of the Law Society of Trinidad Martin Daly recently spoke at a Barbados Bar Association function and gave the unflattering opinion that the backlog of cases in the Caribbean (including Barbados) cannot be improved through regular processing. If you can deliver this one solution Chief Justice Designate Gibson, ordinary Barbadians may begin to mend an eroding confidence in our system of justice which has begun to take root.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


  1. @David. Excellent piece. It is one that will resonate with everyone. There are many excellent lawyers that could be coopted to judge these internet cases. I do think, however, that the sum of $100,000 is a tad high for a small claims matter. In Canada it is, if memory serves, $10,000 Canadian and in the UK, I believe it is £11,000.

    The edifice on Whitepark Road has all the mod cons, but they are not used. As it stands now, it is nothing but an expensive folly – a monument to nothing.

    It would make sense for the courts to assign small claims cases filed and evidence presented by internet to top lawyers and to pay them a standard fee per case to judge them. If there are clear instructions as to claim and defense and how these are to be evidenced and supported, many of these cases could be tried and decided quickly and efficiently in a matter of weeks, instead of the interminable wait for court time to be found, the inevitable requests for adjournments and delays and the even more soul-destroying and interminable wait until the judge finally gets around to delivering his/her judgment. Not to mention the ruinous legal fees involved on both sides.

    And guess what? We don’t have to start it from scratch. We can study the way it is done in other countries and adapt it to our own particular needs – they have done the spadework and the testing of the system for us. We need only adopt it.


  2. Would love to read comments on why a similar system could not work for Barbados.


  3. We already have a small claims court, David. What does an online claim add to the procedure?


  4. @Sprat

    Tell us about the small claims court we have and its workings.

    Would welcome being enlightened on the subject matter.


  5. @Spratt

    Like David please tell us about this small claims court that you say exists in Barbados. Never have I heard of such a thing existing here.


  6. The Magistrates Court is a small claims court as well as the Consumer Claims Tribunal. We may not do it online as yet, but this requires legislation.


  7. @Sprat

    Your comment says two things:

    You have not read the blog using your best comprehension skills or you are trying to deliberately obfuscate.


  8. So you are saying this is up to the CJ? And are you denying we have a small claims court? You are never clear in your responses, David.


  9. @Sprat

    The blog refers to using the Internet to facilitate online filing based on predetermined parameters/procedures. In the process the expense of lawyers being involved is minimized.

    Is that clear enough if not feel free to seek further clarification and as always BU will oblige.


  10. @David. It is very clear that Spratt has an agenda. It is equally clear what the agenda is and it is just as clear from whence, either directly or through a surrogate, that agenda springs. Simmonsian to an alarming level.


  11. But you do not have to involve lawyers here either. Online is the difference, I admit.


  12. @Spratt

    Agree that lawyers are not necessary however the process as designed makes it a must to acquire a lawyer if the citizen wants to have the chance of the best result.


  13. David, that’s true in both systems.

    Amused, what about my question? Until then, you are dismssed! Be gone!


  14. @Spratt. Poor you. You couldn’t keep me quiet before and you certainly are no longer in a position to keep me quiet now – not that you were before, as much as you may have wished to think you were. Do you own research or wait until I am good and ready. Then duck.


  15. @Spratt

    If by your admission it straddles both then all the more reason to support integrating a similar model in Barbados. Remember what Martin Daly opined?

    Why don’t you prove Amused a liar by paying a visit to the Registry?


  16. @David, I am not against the online method, it’s just that i thought you were highlighting the small claims aspect. The online method is merely another layer in the hierarchy.

    Re Amused, I suspect that a visit to the Registry will be a waste of my time. Amused has been too evasive and, I do not know how to do it, but could you highlight the doctrine of judicial immunity in English law for BU readers? You can find it on Wikipedia or the Free Dictionary. This should seal the issue.


  17. @spratt

    If implemented properly is it fair to use such dismissive language ‘merely a layer in the hierarchy’?

    The advantage which BU provides Bajans et al is the opportunity to posit another view. Feel free to submit a position.


  18. I concede that it may be of help in some cases, but you know that if the defendant denies the claim, it has to be heard in court.

    Any luck with that excerpt?


  19. So Spratt, instead of speculating on the legal grounds for the action, why not make sure by visiting the Registry? What’s wrong? Afraid you may be easily recognised and the file you asked to see reported on and your visit and identity get back to us all? Lame excuse or not taking up my invitation.


  20. @jack spratt

    The link you posted appears to be broken.


  21. just click on the suggested link and you will get it!


  22. @spratt

    The link is not working, perhaps you can isolate the link you want to share and post the url.


  23. Is there a court where the two parties involved can go before a judge and have the case dealt with the same day? With out lawers. Like the courts you see on tv.


  24. Spratt’s link seems to be working for me… Google asks did you mean ….? and when you clickl on that you will get it…

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading