Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Tales From The Courts Part VII – Madam Justice Issues Order to a Dead Person

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Far right – Madam Justice Elneth Kentish

Arising from BU’s Tales From The Courts Part VI – – Chief Justice Marston Gibson Scores An F In Year One a few BU commenters expressed surprise, and horror at our report which challenged an order handed down by Miss Elneth Kentish who to the chagrin of many occupies a seat on the Bench. A part of the BU report which is the cause of much derision amongst the legal fraternity states:

“Miss Elneth Kentish has produced an order in which there are no parties and one of the purported parties has died and has not had an administrator appointed for them.”

The Order under scrutiny is a public document and can be had on request from the Registry. This matter has mushroomed in a credibility issue for BU. To quell concerns as to the veracity of the BU report we publish the Order with thanks to our friends in the legal community.

Kentish Order, pages 1,2,3,4

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

96 responses to “Tales From The Courts Part VII – Madam Justice Issues Order to a Dead Person”

  1. JUST ASKING Avatar
    JUST ASKING

    WHAT therefore is the conclusion?
    WHAT is it being said here

  2. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right! Avatar
    Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right!

    @Just Asking

    I am not a lawyer, just an old man waiting for orders from my Lord and Father to leave this stage.

    I glean from 80 odd years that an order from the court seems to be some type of final determination which decides the action to be taken in a matter.

    It would seem that Ms. Kentish, in issuing this order to a dead person, hath committed the “unpardonable sin” and hath not observed the legal procedures associated with imposing some type of obligation on a living person and not a duppie.

    Extrapolating on this point and mindful of the context and content in BU, Madame Kentish hath in so doing shown her competencies and capacities (or lack thereof) as one sitting from this place of wisdom and judicial knowledge.

    Assuredly, this post will ultimately get wiser men that poor old foolish me to comment on this high science ting but i do plead ignorance and the use of 80 years and a little common sense which BU detractors know that i ent got much of.

    At 80, you doan sleep much since your constant fear is that sleep gine creep up pun you, the permanent kind … so you does find tings to do .. therefore these late night/early morning ramblings

  3. ac Avatar
    ac

    QUESTION: why would she do a thing like that? truly mindboggling

  4. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    这是否意味着，逗得平反吗？哦SHITE

  5. David Avatar
    David

    @Carl Moore

    This is the stuff you will not see in the traditional media although we (BU) live in hope that in this case given what this act of incompetence implies we will be happy to be proved wrong.

  6. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    David
    你应该把这个脸书…美地亚影视捡起来，并声称是Facebook
    (You should put this on face book … then the madia will pick it up and claim that the source was facebook)

  7. Jan Jan Avatar
    Jan Jan

    You should put it on Facebook
    You will enhance your patriotism efforts , if you do
    BU may not get all the glory all the time but you know with the people who know, BU is the place to come to for the real information even though it might be hidden under crap from some commenters at times–BUt it is there !

    Put it on Facebook !

  8. David Avatar
    David

    It is posted to David King’s Facebook page and you have the option also to click the share button at the bottom of the blog to email, tweet etc.

  9. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. Well done. You didn’t waste any time getting that. I am having problems downloading page 2. I note that you have placed a watermark in the document. Is page 2 omitted as extra security if someone decides to appropriate the fruits of your labour?

    @Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right! | October 9, 2012 at 5:03 AM. Very close. Not completely correct, but a very apt and clear explanation with which I agree, as far as it goes.

    @BAF. I refer you to my comment above about watermarks. Two choices for the media. 1 is to mine BU and give it credit. 2 is to go to the Registry and get their own copy. Is it your view that they will do either? Personally, Facebook or not, I doubt it.

  10. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    The firm of Jones and Goodridge seemingly sought a DECLARATION on behalf of somebody of the rights of Angela Evelyn and her successors in title and other affected persons who are or might become beneficial owners of adjacent land TO HAVE AND USE A RIGHT OF WAY. Page Two is missing and on two pages material is scrubbed out. Be careful BU – this proves nothing on the evidence provided. But at least we have the Claim No..

  11. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    Was the grant of the Declaration opposed – and if so by whom acting for whom?

  12. David Avatar
    David

    @Amused

    As you correctly stated any legal clerk or lawyer for that matter can access this document, page one suffices for the purpose of seeking out said document.

  13. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David, I see that you (or someone else – maybe your source) have redacted (or “scrubbed out”) information at the top of each page where normally one would expect to find a fax identifier(s). I believe this and the reason is quite clear to the BU family. I am happy to tell you that this in no way impugns or reduces the integrity of the document.

  14. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. Our messages crossed. I applaud your tactic.

  15. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. Gee: get real. How is this document an “ORDER TO a dead person”? And who are the ‘PARTIES’? Amused clearly knows much more than he lets on…I seem to remember him saying that there had been no grant of letters of administration. How could he possibly know that from the document we are now being shown…..but no need for further comment. As David says in his graphic way mouthing his shadow – we have the claim number. So – watch this space.

  16. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    阿童木罗斯再次启动…哈哈哈
    (Ah boy Ross firing up again … HA HA HA)

  17. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. For the record. “And who are the PARTIES?” Indeed. That is what we would all like to know from the Order. Also, I have reviewed all my comments on this matter and at no time have I said or implied that “there had been no grant of letters of administration.”

  18. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    Amused…it’s a DECLARATION for Christ’s sake. Was the application for it opposed?

  19. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    Yes Amused…it was not ‘you’. It was BU. But you know – you play tweedledum and tweedledee to each other so often it really is hard to distinguish the pair of you. My point to ‘you’ – insider knowledge – applies then to ‘BU’.

    I note the post, in the same breath as the administrator reference, says that someone was ‘ordered to do certain things’. Now how precisely? The Order recognizes a right of way and so also the rights and duties which enure to it as is the nature with rights of way.

  20. Neil Clarke Avatar
    Neil Clarke

    This is not an order to a dead person…or anyone for that matter.This is merely a declaration that an easement [right of way] is to subsist over certain property. Big fail, BU!

  21. ac Avatar
    ac

    There is always two sides to a story need to get clarification from the other although i am leaning to support what neil said.

  22. David Avatar
    David

    @ac

    Is there some basis for your conclusion is this your best guess?

    There was a caller on the talks how today who expressed frustration in consummating a land transaction which at latest count is 13 years. He cited the refusal of the lawyer acting on behalf of the seller to respond to his lawyer. There is obviously more to this matter but of interest is the revelation by him that he has written to the Bar Association, Prime Minister, Attorney General and Chief Justice all to no avail.

  23. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. I have no intention of entering into ad hominem comments – or any argument – on what is a matter of trite law. Here is the way it is, for those who never went to law school AND for those who did and it din tek.

    Any action or order has to be in terms of a PERSON’S rights. It cannot be against land. When you say that someone is entitled to a way of necessity (as in this case) it is enforced in respect of the PERSON who owns the land.

    In the present instance, the person against whose land the way of necessity has been ordered has died. As many of the BU family will know likely from personal experience, in the case of outstanding litigation where a party has died, there is a process that must be followed whereby the deceased is substituted for by a living person who has the capacity to act in the real world. This is usually either an executor or an ad litem administrator. You cannot issue an order to a dead person.

  24. John Avatar
    John

    What is the name of the dead person …

    ….. and what is the date of death?

  25. Pieceuhderockyeahright Avatar
    Pieceuhderockyeahright

    80 years old and common sense,not a law degree allowed me to arrive at that conclusion. Tomorrow self I gine down to Marston and I gine get he to pay me ms Kentish salary to add to de few cents de gubment gi’ing me when de munt cum, almost said de “c” word and get ban fuh using dat word and Kentish name in de same paragraph

  26. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    LOL Amused is now saying that someone has died and so the clear implication is that he’s in possession of insider information. Amused – you’re soon gonna have to get a one way ticket.

  27. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ Piece…….time for you to rest yourself.

  28. David Avatar
    David

    @Neil Clarke

    Can you expand on your comment?

  29. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    Gee……David….the point is abundantly clear and YOU KNOW it is clear. This was a DECLARATION…there was NO ORDER AGAINST.

  30. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    David,

    I am loath to enter this discussion, but it appears to me from the documents that this was simply an action in rem; where the order would not be made against the person, as it would be in an action in personam, but against the property itself. Thus all those who come into ownership of the property would be bound by the declaration.Keep up the good work. I still follow BU with interest.

  31. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ Jefferson

    You’re too nice by half….lol

  32. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David. I stand by what I said and I say that Jeff is wrong and am not moved or persuaded in the slightest by his views. Nor, I suspect, is anyone, except……..well………… I look forward to Mr Clarke taking up your invitation and expanding on his comment. He might also like to tell us how he thinks a delay in effecting a proper order (and this is not such) might affect the plans of the person/party who might like this one to stand unchallenged. Whose names should be listed as parties? Once we know whose names are excluded from the order, we can start to inquire why. It may be nothing, but my interest is now piqued and my suspicions need to be satisfied and I intend to see what I can find out.

  33. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ David
    Not being a lawyer (and Bushie is eternally thankful for this..) how is an order made against property?
    In the event of a breech will the property be held liable?
    If indeed the order is against the owner of the property then that is another matter…and should the order should say so should it not?
    ….just asking?

  34. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Bushy. EXACTLY!!!! Something else appears to be going on here. Wonder what.

  35. David Avatar
    David

    @Jeff

    Thanks for your intervention as always. As you know BU is all about embracing all views.

    @Bush Tea

    As you know also everything is not as straight forward as it appears at first brush. Looking forward to others joining and reading the discussion.

  36. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    I can’ deal with obfuscation, legal documents mek me gripe … But I like that there are two opposing views on this and it only serves to prove that the style that lawyers adopt to get their points across only serves to give employment to more lawyers … HA HA HA. Look, could you imagine engineers using legal jargon to define the requirements for getting a plane to leave the ground ….? Oh GAD…!

    Jeff Cumberbach …

    你讨厌的母狗…哈哈哈

  37. robert ross Avatar
    robert ross

    @ BAF

    Yes there are two schools – truth and lies….and please don’t buy into the spin that there are two views about the law on the matter which is the ‘;get out from under’.

    It is abundantly clear that there are some here – and Amused is one – who are intent on destroying Kentish. They have resorted to tactics which in their very nature are scurrilous and defamatory and all the nonsense they are perpetrating is designed to hoodwink those wth no legal training by mere repetition. Repeat it often enough and it must be right.

    Thus Bush Tea….”How can an order be made against property…will the property be held liable?” – sorry total rubbish but understandable rubbish given the manipulation of facts by Amused. He -Amused – clearly knows the full story and is confusing them for his own purposes.

    The Declaration here concerns property, yes. It recognizes that there is a right of way over it. Seemingly there was no objection to it by any interested person. NOW – here is something new – the Declaration was sought by the mortgagee of the land which sought to perfect it’s title. That right of way attaches to the land but is not “against” the land. Everyone with an interest in the land – living or by way of succession – now knows where they stand. And that, in essence, is it.

  38. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Ross

    I wid you bro … as always ….! …哈哈哈

  39. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    jeff cumberbatch

    你他妈的白痴…哈哈哈….谋杀

  40. Amazing !!!! Avatar
    Amazing !!!!

    @ Jeff Cumberbach .
    It is indeed a solid principle that equity may act in rem . That however does not remove the requirement that a party has to apply to the court to enjoin equity to do just that . If for example it was thought that the judge had erred where would the matter stand with respect to an appeal if there are no parties ?
    @ robert ross .
    It is clear that you do not think through much of what you say . A DECLARATION IS GIVEN BY WAY OF AN ORDER MADE BY THE COURT. What do you mean when you say it was a declaration and not an order ? that statement does not make legal sense . You spend too much time getting into personal exchanges ; maybe this is a way of masking your own deficiencies .

  41. Amazing !!!! Avatar
    Amazing !!!!

    @robert ross
    Where on the face of the document is there an indication that the declaration was sought by the mortgagee as you claim ? What is the name of the mortgagee?

  42. Amazing !!!! Avatar
    Amazing !!!!

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch.
    One sees an immediate ground for questioning the declaration which was given in respect of an easement of necessity . That kind of easement is granted at common law under the Rule in Wheeldon v Burrows , NOT under our Law of Property Act .

  43. David Avatar
    David

    On another note It is interesting to note that Angela Evelyn represented herself in this matter.

  44. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @Amazing. 100% agreed.

  45. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    @David | October 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM | Yes, isn’t it. And if she is deceased and no executor or ad litem administrator has been substituted for her………….and IF probate has not been granted and letters of administration issued…………..and if parties, judge and counsel knew this, which they MUST have, it being a very small community………… and if, knowing this, the judge issued the order anyway………..

    Is this the way your mind is working, David? Are you asking if it might be a far bigger story than you thought? I don’t know. BUT, I will use best efforts to find out.

  46. John Avatar
    John

    If, If, If …….

    Is Angela Evelyn the person who is dead or isn’t she?

    What is the date of her death …. and what is the date of the order?

    Is the date of the order the filed date?

    Did title pass from her to her successors?

    … and, ….. what about Naomi.

  47. David Avatar
    David

    @Amused

    BU’s job will always be to ask questions when we think there is good reason.

  48. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    @Amazing, surely you must be aware that the implication of an easement under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows is narrower than the implication of a grant by necessity.

  49. Amazing !!!! Avatar
    Amazing !!!!

    @ jeff cumberbatch.
    An easement under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows is in fact an easement of necessity.

  50. Neil Clarke Avatar
    Neil Clarke

    No Amazing!!!, it is not. See They are both implied forms of grant but they are not identical. Close but no cigar!!! It is clear that this matter is not as simple as it was made out to be.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading