The Judiciary – Barbados is Really, Truly an Island
Submitted by Loose Cannon (name withheld)
NO WHERE ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD are Judges like here.
I am self representing in various matters in the HIGH COURTS of Barbados and one Judge made an Order.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
2.The Claimant be advised to engage the services of an attorney-at-law..
So I asked a question. The Judge recused self. But that is not the worse. Since September 19, 2019 the Judge has held the file and because of that I cannot get to process another Judge or new Date. Why is the file being kept? what the hell is this? In another matter the Judge recused himself because he knew the Defendant and he gave the file back to his Clerk to return to the Registry so that the matter could proceed. That has happened.
Another matter, another Judge the case was dismissed with cost. I was absent. No Defense on file no Application. SUMMARILY DISMISSED. No where else in the World are judges dismissing matters cases “summarily” without exquisite care. The following link is an indication of the guidelines for such actions.
All across the Commonwealth Judges are prudent and rational Officers of justice. It seems to be the opposite in Barbados. The Attorney General recently opined that the judicial process will be sped up with the compliment of new Judges. We seem to have the Peter Principle permeating in the Judiciary. At least my experience, one too many tells this woeful tale.
Case after case judges have rejected Applications to Strike Out of Dismiss “summarily” (at beginning of case) (you hear? APPLICATION TO……).
- it is “plain and obvious” that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action; or they
- are patently ridiculous or incapable of proof. No Application in this case but matter Dismissed.
I don’t want to be conceited but not by a stretch of the imagination is my case in either of those categories, but then again, it boils down to depth and breadth of knowledge. You know WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. and you can learn a lot from a Dummy.
So listen up. Goldie Muirr (Israel’s PM) said Never again. Never again must Lawyers file or continue to use this Low-Down method/strategy to have their Clients avoid facing Justice.
In a Landmark Appeal case in UK the Appeal Judge noted: Diplock LJ said: ‘Thomas William Harkness, retired boiler-lagger, if he had followed, as I have no doubt he has, the intricacies of the interlocutory proceedings in the case, must have thought that `the law is an ass’. I am not sure that this judgment will change his opinion, but at any rate he will not feel it is such an unjust ass as he must have felt before. It was to remedy just this kind of injustice that the new RSC Ord 2 r 1 was made.’
I don’t know; but sometimes (the operators make) the law looks like an ass.
In another in London the Learned Judge opined:
- The new rules (CPR) should be construed widely and generously to give effect to its manifest intentions.
- I am in no doubt that the manner in which the Judge (lower court) exercised his discretion is seriously flawed. (Judges make mistakes too but on what grounds did the Judge in my case make his mistake, with no Application to Dismiss?) Are we in the 30’s Wild West?
- If we do not make an Order directing the correction of these errors, and we leave the judge’s order to stand, in my judgement the result would be the antithesis of justice. The Claimant’s Claim would be struct out in its infancy without and opportunity to investigate its merit and the Defendants would receive an unjustified windfall.
These Judges, Lord this and Lord that are beautifully BRILLIANT in their determinations.
In another landmark case in London, with an Application to Strike Out again, the Lower Court judge in refusing opined
- The claimant, Faiz Siddiqui, was a history student at the University of Oxford, who sat his final examinations in June 2000 and obtained a 2:1 degree.
- The claim was issued on 26 August 2014.
- The defendant applied to strike out and/or sought summary judgment so as to prevent the case from going to trial.
Under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 the court has discretion to extend the three year limitation period for bringing a claim for personal injury. The judge was firmly of the view that this issue ought to be determined with the benefit of oral evidence and cross-examination. He did not consider that this was a case in which the prospect of the trial judge being persuaded to extend time and disapply the primary limitation period was too low to justify a trial of the issue.
Strike out denied. Justice Karr opined that with all the evidence from both parties, “It seema to me, that the University has a case to answer”.
Where are we with justice? Judges ought NOT to be allowing perpetrators to “get away with murder” behind technical and frivolous grounds. There will be anarchy in the land.
Know your rights and options regarding summary strike Outs and dismissals. There are a plethora of cases of denied strike outs and dismissals online so be armed with your smoking guns:
- AustraliaLII.com and more
Better yet Defend yourselves. All the information is now on line. This shit has to stop. So to Appeal we go. More costs, paper and time.