Submitted by Kim
A few years ago, on the cusp of the six-year limitation limit, I filed four lawsuits in the magistrate’s court against the parties in a Landlord/Tenant matter where the defendants unlawfully entered and removed items belonging to me, my daughter a deceased’s estate and a former UWI student (4). I was advised to take it to the High court because the four claims were being brought by the same person and against the same people and totaled more than $10,000. I pointed out that it was various claims, each marginally under $10,000. I was told “but they are from the same person and against the same person, although one claim had my daughter’s name and another the estate’s name). At the mention of the estate, I pointed out that I was interested in pursuing the other three claims there and then but was again told that the amount was beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court.
The irony (or anomaly) was that in that same court, in the same Parish in the same year before the very same Magistrate, and prepared by the very same Representative (Bailiff) a similar case (scenario) but with one, single, only, individual, lone Applicant against one, single, only, lone individual Defendant totaling some $15,000 plus and the Magistrate gave Judgement for damages and cost.
These men on the bench are either mad, bad or drunk or all of those. Don’t I read and hear of Criminals being slapped with many charges and various counts of one act or other? Could that be only for Criminal proceedings?
For what it was worth, I followed the Magistrate’s advice and endeavoured to move to the High Courts. This necessitated gross paperwork, rhetoric and research and statements sought etc. In the process, I uncovered that an individual {one) can bring various claims, individually or combined against another on behalf of self and as representative of another or others thus my filing for my self and representative of the estate and legal representative of my daughter. But If I had argued with Mr Magistrate he might have wanted to slap me with contempt for telling him how to do his work. Only the claim on behalf of the estate was outside of his jurisdiction.
The legal databases are proliferated with cases upon cases of individual Applicants laying multiple claims against one, lone Defendant especially in the capacity of representative of others (parties to the claim). What i do not understand is how the legal fraternity and judiciary here don’t know or don’t care to learn of all these nuances and extensions and varying scenarios of the application of the law.
Now up the ladder, it seems that the people at the higher end are talking about time limitation and statute bar. Few seem to know or remember that the Limitation of Actions flaunts extensions and exemptions. There is a lack of breadth and depth in the application and practice of the law around here. Unless, unless, there is some other morbid, sordid, sinister explanation.
The folks up on the hill have to do much better at the quality of their production. I know the Dean of Law is a regular contributor to this blog.
And while we are at it, who pays for all this barrenness? If taxpayers are paying the judiciary, as I know, the judiciary has to do better than serve up such crassness.
Wasting paper and time; aka money.
Remember; “Yes Mister Prime Minister”?
Yes Madam Prime Minister, you need to commission an inquiry into how the judiciary works vis a vis the taxpayers’ money. Justice must be seen as being served or having been served. It should not be perceived that there is anarchy in the judiciary. But there is something radically wrong up in there.
Updated 25 November 2019
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.