REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF...

of 17

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. P.247 OF 2019

CLAIM NO. CV 2018-01072

BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

AND

ALISON AYERS

RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT

PANEL

JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. RAJKUMAR

JUSTICE OF APPEAL C. PEMBERTON

DATE OF DELIVERY: DECEMBER 9, 2019

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr N. Byam instructed by Mr B. James

For the Respondent: Mr B. Hallpike instructed by Ms M. Sorzano

of 17

I have read the Decision of Pemberton J.A. I agree with it and have nothing to add.

/s/ P. RAJKUMAR J.A.

DECISION

Delivered by C Pemberton JA

NATURE OF APPEAL

1. This appeal arose out of a breach of contract claim by Alison C Ayers (ACA) against the

Ministry of Sport and latterly, against the Attorney General (AG). Both entities entered an

appearance and filed a defence to the claim. At the first CMC on 20 November 2018, the trial

judge by Order granted ACA permission to withdraw his claim against the Ministry of Sport.

This did not meet with satisfaction on the part of the AG who applied to have proceedings

declared a nullity. This application was made on the ground that although ACA added the

AG to the proceedings before the first Case Management Conference (CMC), the

proceedings were first initiated against the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs (the Ministry

of Sport), an entity that lacked legal personhood. By Order dated 2 July 2019, the trial judge

rejected “submissions by Counsel for the defendant on the issue of nullity”. The AG appeals

this ruling. The hearing took place on the 14 October 2019 and judgement was reserved.

2. The main issue is whether the Claim brought by the Claimant/ Respondent, Alison C Ayers

(ACA), was a nullity ab initio.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

3. The appeal is allowed on the ground that the claim against the Ministry of Sport was a nullity

ab initio. It could not be revived and cured by adding the AG as a defendant at the stage at

of 17

which ACA attempted to do so, that is, “before the first CMC”. Further, a trial judge cannot

revive a Claim at any stage of the proceedings once that claim is a nullity ab initio.

THE PLEADINGS

ACA’S CASE

4. In his Claim Form and Statement of case filed on April 13 2018, ACA claimed that in April

2014, the Minister of Sport (the Minister) contacted him to prepare and deliver, on behalf

of the Minister and Ministry of Sport, an implementation plan for a national social-

community development/ anti-crime sports project. The project’s name was The Trinidad

and Tobago Unity Games (the “Unity Games”).

5. On 9 April 2014, the Minister contacted ACA by text message, to prepare a plan/ project and

Budget, in two weeks after which time the parties would meet. The project budget was

estimated at $21,499,000.00. ACA’s consultation fee represented 10% of the total budget-

$2,149,900.00, itemized in the budget as “Project Ideas/ Development & Presentation

Marketing/ Project Co-ordination.

6. On 5 May 2014, ACA met with the Minister. At that meeting, the Minister identified ways in

which the project could receive immediate partial funding and, according to ACA, the

Minister instructed the Permanent Secretary to identify funding for the shortfall.

7. On or about 14 June 2014, the Minister informed ACA that the project had been transferred

to the Ministry of National Security. After meeting with representatives of the Ministry of

National Security, it became apparent that the project would move no further toward

implementation.

8. However, ACA alleged, that by that time he had already completed a significant portion of

of 17

his assignment.1 Although he had not yet signed a contract with any entity, on 1 July 2014,

ACA sent an invoice in the sum of $1,074,950.00 to the Ministry of Sport requesting payment

for work already completed.

9. By letter dated 15 August 2014, the Ministry of Sport (under new leadership) denied the

existence of a binding contract and referred ACA to the Sports Company of Trinidad and

Tobago. ACA instructed his attorneys to issue Pre-Action Protocol Letters to the Ministry,

the last one being issued on 24 May 2017.

10. On the 28 March 2018, ACA filed proceedings against the Ministry of Sport. On 13 April 2018,

before the first CMC, he filed an amended Statement of Case adding the AG as the Second

Defendant.

THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE

11. The Defendants filed two appearances: one on the 11 May 2018 on behalf of the AG; and

the other on the 18 March 2018 on behalf of the Ministry of Sport. On 28 September 2018,

a Defence was filed on behalf of both the Ministry of Sport and the AG.

12. In their Defence, the Defendants assert that there never was a budgetary allocation for the

contract as alleged by ACA, and if there had in fact been such a contract it was

unenforceable. They denied owing ACA the sum of $1,074,940.00 or any monies at all. The

Defendants’ Defence, though not elegantly pleaded, denied ACA’s case in its entirety. In fact,

at clause 2 of their Defence, the Defendants contended that the cause of action is a nullity.

PROCEDURUAL CONTEXT

13. The first CMC was held on 20 November 2018 and all parties appeared. On the ultimate

1 On the documents attached to ACA’s pleadings, he alleged that he made representations to certain international organizations, public figures and artists for endorsements and/ or patronage; wrote a jingle, designed the logo, developed the project action plan and activity schedule; and devised the marketing strategy for use in execution of the Unity Games.

of 17

challenge raised by the Defendants, their attorney informed the Court of the reason why

the action was a nullity, that is, the First Defendant was not a legal entity. It is noteworthy,

that in his pleadings, ACA failed to describe the Ministry and the capacity in which it was

sued by him.

14. It is common ground that in keeping with these submissions, the attorney for ACA sought

and obtained leave to withdraw his suit against the Ministry, the First Defendant as named.

The matter, which followed a long and tortuous course, finally ended with the trial judge

rejecting the “submissions by Counsel for the defendant on the issue of nullity”, and giving

further orders for the continuance of the matter. This order is now appealed against.

ISSUES

15. At the heart of this appeal is whether naming the Ministry of Sport as the Defendant at the

initiation of these proceedings amounted to a misnomer or whether it was in fact a

misidentification of the proper party to be sued. The response to this central question will

determine whether the initial institution of proceedings against the Ministry of Sport was a

nullity ab initio. If so, could the subsequent amendment to include the Attorney General

revive the proceedings? Further, can a trial judge revive a claim, which is void ab initio at any

stage of the proceedings?

DISCUSSION

Whether naming the Ministry of Sport as the defendant amounted to a misnomer versus

misidentification of the proper party to be sued

16. For the reasons given below, we find that by naming the Ministry of Sport as the defendant

in these proceedings, ACA misidentified the proper party to be sued.

of 17

SUBMISSIONS

ACA’s Submissions

17. When the appeal came up for hearing, Counsel informed that he would rely on the written

submissions that were filed before the trial judge. Although this is not the preferred course,

this Court allowed Counsel to make submissions on his legs, in response to the written

submissions to support the appeal filed by Counsel for the AG.

18. Counsel held the firm view that the initial suit against the Ministry of Sport was simply an

error amounting to a misnomer and that under Part 26 rule 8(3) of the Civil Proceedings

Rules 1998 (CPR), the Judge had jurisdiction to correct the error. The authorities upon which

he relied before the trial judge were sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the Judge to

correct this misnomer.2 He argued that while he did not plead this in his Statement of Case,

his true position is that he sued the Ministry of Sport in its capacity as agent of the State.

The belated inclusion of the AG as party to the proceedings and the subsequent withdrawal

of suit against the Ministry of Sport with leave of the Court, he claimed, was a reflection of

this intention.

AG’S Written and Oral Submissions

19. In addition to the written submissions alluded to above, Counsel for the AG also made oral

submissions at the hearing. I shall refer to them without distinction. Counsel submitted that

on the face of the Statement of Case, this was not a misnomer but was in fact a

misidentification of the proper party to be sued. He argued that the pleadings relied on

demonstrated that ACA intended to sue to Ministry of Sport for breach of contract. This fact

did not change even when the pleadings were amended by adding the Attorney General as

second defendant. After the addition, ACA continued to treat the Ministry of Sport as a

2 Authorities relied on: 1. Admiralty Action in Rem against the Motor Vessel – KGC Company Limited v The Owners and/or Parties Interested in the Motor Vessel “ByWater Liberty” CV 2013-01209; 2. Mr Danny Maman (trading as Fine Watches and Jewelry) v Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Policy Number DCAL/08230 [2016] EWCJ 1327(QB); 3. The Insight Group Limited, Insightsoftware.com Limited v Kingdom Smith (a firm) [2012] EWCH 3644 (QB); and 4. Christopher Michael Eaton v Mitchells & Butler Plc 2015 WL 4938185

of 17

separate but integral party to his claim. Counsel argued further, that if ACA intended to sue

the AG, but realized that he sued the wrong party, the amendment would have been to

substitute the AG for the Ministry instead of bringing a case against them both. Counsel for

ACA opined that “the Ministry of Sport should be viewed as an arm of the State”.3

THE LAW

20. Section 19(2) and (4) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act (the Act) 4 provides that

where proceedings are instituted against the State or where the State is joined as a

defendant or third party, the AG must be named. The AG is therefore the nominal defendant

in proceedings where the State is made a party.

21. Part 19 rule 2(2) of the CPR5 provides for the addition of parties before the first CMC without

leave of the Court. Part 20 rule 1(1) of the CPR6 provides for the amendment of a statement

of case before the first CMC without leave of the Court. For proceedings against the State,

Part 58 rule 4(1) of the CPR7 requires the claimant to set out “reasonable information”

regarding the circumstances in which the State’s liability arose.

3 See Transcript of hearing dated 14 October 2019, 32. 4 Section 19(2) and (4) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act Chapter 8:02 provides: (2) Subject to this Act and to any other written law, proceedings against the State shall be instituted against the Attorney General. (4) The State may be joined as a defendant or third party to any proceedings to which it could be a defendant under this Act by joining the Attorney General as a defendant or third party. 5 Part 19 rule 2(2) of the CPR provides that: A party may add a new party to proceedings without permission at any time before a case management conference. 6 Part 20 rule 1(1) of the CPR provides that: A statement of case may be changed at any time prior to a case management conference without the court’s permission. 7 Part 58 rule 4(1) of the CPR requires that: Where a claim is made in proceedings against the State the claim form or statement of case must contain reasonable information as to the circumstances in which it is alleged that the liability of the State has arisen and as to the government department and officers of State involved.

of 17

ANALYSIS

22. It is undisputed and very clearly stated in the text of the Statement of Case, that ACA first

brought an action against the Ministry of Sport. This runs counter to section 19(2) of the

Act. This, his Counsel says, was done in error. It was a misnomer, hence the reason why he

added the AG as a second defendant. In that way, Counsel asserts, he has satisfied the

requirements of section 19(4) of the Act. The procedure used was that as set out in Part 19

rule 2(2) of the CPR. In Counsel’s view in drafting the pleadings as they were, he satisfied

the Part 58 rule 4(1) requirements of the CPR, which mandate that he provide “reasonable

information” about the circumstances in which the liability of the State arose. Counsel for

the AG rejected this stance and he observed before the trial judge that the claim was a

nullity, having been commenced against a party with no legal personality. I agree with this.

23. The general rule is that any person with legal personality capable of being identified may sue

or be sued.8 Each party must be a legal person, whether natural or artificial and the parties

must sue or be sued by their correct name.9 The authorities have provided certain markers

or indices, which assist in determining whether an error is a misnomer or a misidentification

of the proper party to be sued. The latter is fatal to any cause of action. These markers are

the:

i. Objective Test;

ii. Description of the Party in Issue;

iii. Name as against Identification of the Party in Issue; and

iv. Justice required;

The Objective Test

24. In Davies v Elsby Bros Ltd,10 Devlin LJ identified the test to be applied when determining

whether an error is a misnomer or a misidentification of a party to the proceedings. Laying

8 Halsbury Laws of England, Volume 11, [496] 9 Atkin’s Court Forms, Volume 29(2), [402] 10 [1960] 3 All ER 672

of 17

down what I would call the objective test, he opined that, as a general principle in

determining whether an error was a misnomer,

The question is not what the writer of the document intended or meant but what

a reasonable man reading the document would understand it to mean.11

(emphasis mine)

So a reasonable man (person) who is a defendant,

In all the circumstances of the case, and looking at the document as a whole would

say to himself: “of course it must mean me but they have got my name wrong”,

then there is a case of mere misnomer. If, on the other hand, he would say, “I

cannot tell from the document itself whether they mean me or not…” then it seems

to me that one is getting beyond the realm of misnomer.12

I associate myself with these remarks.

Description of the Party in Issue

25. In The Sardinia Sulcis,13 the Court of Appeal held that, “if in the case of an intended

defendant, the plaintiff gets the right description but the wrong name, there is unlikely to be

any doubt as to the identity of the person intended to be sued. But if he gets the wrong

description it will be otherwise”.

Name as against Identification of the Party in Issue

26. In Adelson v Associated Newspapers Ltd, the Court of Appeal emphasized that “the mistake

must be as to the name of the party rather than as to the identity of the party”. 14 It is clear

11 ibid , p 675 12 Davies v Elsby Bros Ltd, p 675 13 Owners of the Sardinia Sulcis v Owners of the Al Tawwab, The Sardinia Sulcis [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 201, p 207 per Lloyd LJ 14 [2007] 4 All ER 330, [56] per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ

of 17

that in deciding whether an error on the pleadings could be classified as a misnomer rather

than a misidentification, regard must be had to the pleadings relied on by a claimant.

The Justice Required

27. In Metaxides v Swart & Ors,15 issues arose regarding the management of a multi-unit

condominium in Grand Bahama. There were two groups of owners: the Metaxides Group

(Metaxides) and the Swart Group (Swart). The body corporate for the condominium was

Silver Point Condominium Apartments (SPCA). Metaxides, brought proceedings against

‘Silver Point Limited’ (the ‘Metaxides Action’). Although Silver Point Limited developed the

site, it had no responsibility for, or control over the operation of the condominium and

ceased to exist by the time the action was brought. Metaxides amended its originating

summons to name 'Silverpoint Limited (Silver Point Condominium Apartments)' as the

defendant. The Court granted certain orders and an ex parte injunction, proceeding as

though SPCA was the defendant.

28. Swart then commenced proceedings against Metaxides (the Swart Action) seeking a

declaration that the consent orders granted in the Metaxides Action were invalid. Swart

contended that the orders granted were a nullity in law, because the Metaxides Action was

commenced against a non-existent defendant (Silver Point Limited) and the originating

summons was never properly amended to join SPCA as a defendant. The Court of Appeal

overruled the judge's decision, finding that the entire proceedings in the Metaxides Action

were a nullity because the defendant originally named did not exist and 'you cannot amend

what never existed'. Moreover, there was no evidence that leave to amend was granted by

the lower court. However, the Privy Council held inter alia, that in deciding whether the

orders made by the Judge should be set aside, the “ultimate question” was whether there

had been a “defect so fundamental that they should be set aside as a matter of justice”.16

15 Metaxides v Swart and others, Silver Point Condominium Apartments v Swart and others (2015) 87 WIR 60; [2015] UKPC 32 16 ibid, [22] per Lord Toulson

of 17

After examining the originating summons and documents in support, the Board identified

the error as a misnomer and opined:

It would have been obvious to anybody reading the originating

summons, the amended originating summons, the ex parte

injunction and supporting affidavit that [Metaxides] was seeking to

proceed against the body which was responsible for the operation

of the property.17

Can the same be said for the case at bar?

29. When a claim is challenged on the ground that the wrong party has been sued, the text must

be examined and as a first step, an objective approach used, to determine whether or not

the description of the defendant clearly identifies who the claimant intends to sue. The

second step is to determine if the description is accurate but the defendant is misnamed. In

those circumstances, the error is a misnomer and the proceedings survive any challenge.

Third, if there is a mistake but the mistake is as to the name but not the identity then it can

be classified a misnomer. However, if the description identifies a party lacking legal

personhood, then the error is a misidentification of the proper party to be sued. This means

that the proceedings cannot survive and are a nullity. Amending the pleadings by naming a

party that has legal personhood does not correct the error. However, in Metaxides the Privy

Council added another layer to the exercise of resolving whether an error regarding the

proper party to be sued is a misnomer or a misidentification. A claim will be set aside if the

error is a “defect so fundamental that [it] should be set aside as a matter of justice.”

30. It is important in applying the dicta, to be cognizant of the fact that the Privy Council’s

decision met the justice of that particular case. The instant appeal is distinguishable from

Metaxides. In that case, SPCA did not object to being named as a defendant and more

17 Metaxides v Swart & Ors , [23] per Lord Toulson

of 17

importantly, the right defendant was described in the pleadings although called by the

wrong name. In this appeal, ACA was statute bound to name the AG as defendant if he truly

intended to bring an action against the State. He did so after the fact. The CPR required him

to provide “reasonable information” regarding the circumstances in which the liability of the

State arose. He failed to establish a link between his interactions with the Minister/Ministry

of Sport and liability on the part of the State. Further, at the earliest opportunity, Counsel

for the AG raised firm objection to the efficacy of the proceedings on the ground that the

Ministry is an entity lacking legal personhood.

31. By drafting pleadings that relied solely on interactions and promises made by the Minister/

Ministry of Sport and naming the Ministry as the defendant, ACA has moved from the realm

of misnomer and into misidentification. The Act is clear. Proceedings initiated against the

State must be brought in the name of the AG. That being said, after the AG was added, the

only description provided was as to Joinder under the Act. Other than that, on the face of

the pleadings, the AG played no role in the circumstances that lead to the breach of contract.

Further, by looking at the text, that is the statement of case, an intention can be inferred

from the words written and language used.

32. An important factor in such an exercise is time. The intention must be gleaned as at the time

of filing. At that time, it was clear that ACA intended enter into contractual relations with

the Ministry and intended to sue the Ministry for breach of contract. If it is that that intention

now coalesces around misidentification of the party to be sued it cannot be argued, as

Counsel for ACA has attempted to do, that it was a misnomer or a mere mistake and not a

nullity. I hazard to say that if it is decided that this was a misnomer, it would be giving life to

a method of procurement that is unusual and would actually be putting power in hands

without recourse to approved checks and balances in the system with respect to the proper

procurement of services for state and government entities.

33. Counsel’s utterances from the bar table were not given life in the text of the pleadings and

have not done so to date in the form of draft pleadings to be presented to the Court for its

of 17

consideration. The question remains should we accede to Counsel’s request and reject this

appeal. I think not. We cannot give life to an action in which parties do not present a proper

case to be defended and tried by the Court.

Having decided that the initial institution of proceedings against the Ministry of Sport was a

nullity ab initio, could the proceedings have been revived at any stage and more so by the trial

judge?

SUBMISSIONS

ACA’s Submissions

34. Counsel for ACA submits that when the error was realized, the claim was amended to include

the AG. He contends that there was no irregularity by the time the matter was heard at the

first CMC since the error was amended in accordance with Part 19 rule 2(2) and Part 20

rule1(1) of the CPR. He also relied on the conduct of the Defendants. Counsel for the AG

filed Appearances and a Defence on behalf Ministry and the AG. He argued that this conduct

suggests that the issues of irregularity and nullity did not arise. Additionally, the AG failed to

indicate that the Ministry was the wrong party on the Appearance filed on its behalf. He

contended further, that, if that was indeed their position, an Appearance should have been

entered and Defence filed for the AG only.

AG’s Submissions

35. Counsel for the AG submitted that since the Ministry of Sport is neither a real nor legal

person, it cannot sue or be sued and so the action begun as a nullity. The amendment did

not cure the action and the proceedings remain a nullity. Further, the AG contends that a

judge must strike out a nullity once it is brought to his or her attention.

of 17

LAW

36. Pursuant to Part 9 rule 2(1) and (3) of the CPR18 a defendant who wishes to be heard,

especially when he wishes to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction must enter an appearance. Part

10 rule 2(1) and (3) of the CPR19 requires defendant to file a defence in order to be able to

defend a claim. If the defendant fails to comply with either of these rules within the period

mandated, the court may enter judgement in default.

ANALYSIS

37. Counsel for ACA further argued that if the proceedings were fatal on the ground of nullity,

the AG should neither have entered an Appearance nor filed a Defence. However, as has

already been said, a defendant who wishes to be heard must enter an Appearance pursuant

to Part 9 rule 5(1) of the CPR. A defendant who also wishes to defend the claim must file a

Defence pursuant to Part 10 rule 1(1) of the CPR. Failure to comply with these Rules in the

times specified can result in a default judgement being entered against the defendant. If the

AG failed to comply with the Rules, he would have had no right to be heard on the issue of

nullity or on any other issues arising in these proceedings. Further, the AG was under no

obligation to warn ACA that his claim as initially filed against the Ministry of Sport was a

nullity. ACA’s argument must fail.

18 Part 9 rule 2(1) and (3) of the CPR provides that (1) If the defendant wishes— (a) to dispute the claim; or (b) to dispute the court’s jurisdiction, he must enter an appearance giving notice of intention to defend. … (3) If he fails to do so, judgment may be entered if Part 12 allows it. 19 Part 10 rule 2(1) and (3) of the CPR provides that: (1) A defendant who wishes to defend all or part of a claim must file a defence. (3) If a defendant fails to file a defence within the period for filing a defence, judgment for failure to defend may be entered if Part 12 allows it.

of 17

38. Did misidentifying the Ministry of Sport as the party as the party to be sued, create a “defect

so fundamental” that the claim filed by ACA should be struck out “as a matter of justice”?

On the issue raised above in Metaxides, “whether as a matter of justice the amendment can

be allowed to revive a claim that is a nullity”, we find that the defect was fundamental, and

that the justice of this case for the policy reasons outlined above, cannot admit to allowing

the amendment to revive this case whether the amendment was made before the first CMC

or permitted by the trial judge during the course of this matter.

39. Were his pleadings incurably bad? In International Bulk Shipping & Services Ltd v Minerals

& Metals Trading Corp of India,20 the Court of Appeal held that, “The general rule is that an

action commenced in the name of a non-existent person, or company is a nullity”.21 Here,

Evans LJ opined that “a distinction must be made … between ‘the identity of the person

intending to sue’ and the name of that party. A mistake as to the latter can be corrected, but

as to the former not”.22 This principle applies to the plaintiff and defendant alike- if either of

them do not exist, the proceedings are a nullity and must be set aside.

40. In Lazard Bros & Co v Midland Bank Ltd,23 the House of Lords had to decide, whether a

garnishee order nisi should be set aside on the ground that the judgment was a nullity,

having been signed against a non-existent defendant, since the Russian Bank (defendant

originally named in the suit) ceased to exist as a juristic person before the date of the writ.

Their Lordships held that the writ, judgement and garnishee order were a nullity because

the bank ceased to exist before proceedings were instituted:

It is clear law, scarcely needing any express authority, that a judgment must be set

aside and declared a nullity by the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction

20 International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v Minerals and Metals Trading Corp of India; International Bulk Shipping and Services Ltd v President of India; Himoff Maritime Enterprises Ltd v President of India [1996] 1 All ER 1017 21 ibid, p 1023 22 International Bulk Shipping & Services Ltd v Minerals & Metals Trading Corp of India, p 1026 23 [1933] AC 289

of 17

if and as soon as it appears to the Court that the person named as the judgment

debtor was at all material times at the date of writ, and subsequently, non-

existent.24

41. This appeal raised a simple point with huge ramifications on the responsibility of a claimant

to bring the correct defendant to Court. Some errors can be cured if there is a mistake as to

name simplicter. This will be easily gleaned from the statement of case. Then, the court will

give leave for a claimant to change the defendant by way of substitution but there are certain

conditions that must be met. The originating case must be a valid case before the court and

not a nullity, that is, there must be a cause of action against a properly constituted

defendant.

42. Having applied all of the tests, it is clear that ACA intended to sue the Ministry of Sport, an

entity not recognized by the State Liability and Proceedings Act as being capable of suing or

being sued. Since his error was a misidentification of the proper party to be sued, this error

cannot be classified a misnomer. The proceedings initiated by ACA against the Ministry of

Sport were a nullity ab initio and could not be revived by adding the AG as a defendant.

43. The CPR cannot be used to create a valid claim where there is none in law. For the reasons

provided above, where the error arising is one of misidentification of the proper party to be

sued, a trial judge has no jurisdiction at any time whether during the first CMC or other

outings to revive proceedings that are a nullity.

ORDER

44. It is hereby ordered that:

i. This appeal is allowed.

ii. The Orders and directions of the trial judge are set aside.

24 ibid, p 297 per Lord Blanesburgh

of 17

iii. That there be no order as to costs.

/s/ Charmaine Pemberton

Justice of Appeal

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF...

Documents

Transcript of REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF...