The High Court of Justice in Antigua and Barbuda struck out a claim against Member of Parliament Anthony Shamari Smith, ruling that the claimants failed to articulate the grounds of their case, violating key procedural rules.
Justice Jan Drysdale, delivering the judgment on December 5, 2024, underscored the importance of procedural fairness and clarity, particularly in cases involving constitutional claims.
The case, brought by Eversiegh Rawle Warner, Ann Juliette Simon, and Ivan Sylvester Hurst, sought to challenge Smith’s parliamentary seat as an independent.
However, the Fixed Date Claim Form filed on September 9, 2024, did not state the grounds for the claim or the alleged breaches. Justice Drysdale ruled that this omission violated Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 56.3, which mandates that claims must clearly outline the grounds and relief sought.
In her ruling, Justice Drysdale stressed that procedural fairness is central to the justice system, ensuring that all parties are adequately informed and prepared. “The requirement to state the grounds of a claim is essential for procedural fairness,” she said.
“Without a clear statement of the grounds, the applicant is unable to adequately prepare his defense, and the court is unable to make an informed decision.”
The judge noted that constitutional claims often involve complex legal arguments that demand precise articulation of the issues at hand. “Failing to meet this standard undermines the principles of fairness and equality before the court,” Justice Drysdale remarked.
The claimants argued that affidavits filed in support of the claim could compensate for the deficiencies in the Fixed Date Claim Form. However, Justice Drysdale rejected this contention, stating that affidavits serve as supplementary evidence and cannot substitute for a properly drafted claim. She further criticized parts of the affidavits for containing opinion evidence, which was inadmissible in this context.
“The affidavits cannot cure the fundamental defect of the Fixed Date Claim Form,” the judge explained. “This document is the cornerstone of the claim, and its inadequacies render the entire case procedurally defective.”
The claimants also suggested that the procedural flaw could be rectified through an amendment to the claim form. However, Justice Drysdale found that they failed to provide concrete details or proposals for such an amendment. Without this specificity, the court could not assess whether an amendment would sufficiently address the defects.
“The court cannot speculate on the potential content of an amendment, especially when the respondents have not provided any concrete proposals,” Justice Drysdale said. “It is incumbent upon the party seeking to amend a pleading to provide a clear and detailed explanation of the proposed changes.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the Fixed Date Claim Form and supporting affidavits were fundamentally defective and could not proceed. Justice Drysdale exercised the court’s inherent power to strike out cases that fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action. She also highlighted the prejudice caused to the defendant, who was left unclear about the case he needed to defend.
The court ordered the claim struck out and awarded costs of $1,500 to Smith. Justice Drysdale also set February 14, 2025, as the date for further hearings related to a separate application filed by the Attorney General.
By failing to clearly state the grounds of their claim, the claimants deprived both the defendant and the court of the ability to address the issues effectively.
Moreover, the judgment serves as a reminder that procedural defects cannot be overlooked or excused in the name of expediency. As Justice Drysdale noted, “The overriding objective of the CPR is not a means by which a party or the court can avoid clear procedural provisions in the quest to seek a desired outcome.”
For legal practitioners and claimants, this ruling highlights the importance of careful drafting and adherence to procedural requirements. It also underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding fairness and transparency, ensuring that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their cases.
READ THE JUDGEMENT BELOW:
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
However this is all dressed up by the defence, it stinks to high heaven.
This terrible miscarriage and misjudgement is a real kick in the teeth, not only for the constituents of All Saints West that voted for Anthony Smith AS A UPP CANDIDATE, but also damages the democratic process in the country.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO VOTERS RIGHTS?
Smith’s pyrrhic victory will come back to haunt him. Maybe not now as he hides behind Gaston Browne’s political coat tails, but his ability as a credible politician has been damaged way beyond measure.
The court to strike off this case on a “technicality” demeans our justice system, when everyone knows and understands why the All Saints West 3 brought this court case in the first instance.
If there’s any justice for all those that voted for a UPP candidates, then hopefully, an appeal will take place in the not too distant future.
HIDING BEHIND A TECHNICALITY STINKS!
Seems to me as if the legal advice that was given to the claimants was ‘wanting’.
‘Maybe’ the claimants were determine to go forward with the matter regardless. I don’t know.
Due to the public concern on this case, I think that the lawyer for the claimants should say something publicly.
We can’t even Mr Warner and others. Justin Simon was extremely loud on the matter….and they sent Ms Bradshaw and I’m sure she didn’t prepared the documents….Tabor warned them that the case was frivolous…so what them do…sent Bradshaw.
And Mr warner forget to take the emotion and personal feelings out the case and apply the law…it is so embarrassing to say the least…seeking a BI-ELECTION that’s all….and trying to destroy Smith political career at the same time….and I’m sure they themselves never consulted the people of all saint west…
I do not expect any other reaction to the much-anticipated ruling delivered yesterday from the likes of Brixtonian and other deeply wounded, sorely hurt ringside UPP supporters. “He won on a technicality!” they bawl, knowing full well that this was no TKO but a clean, crystal-clear knock out!!! Pity that the award was so paltry -$1500!!!! I hope that their legal team had agreed to take this historic case pro bono.
How many more cases Justin Simon is going to lose????? I thought the upp lawyer was a well learned individual. How did he pass out at law school? Pull strings got him into the Rum bar. Is chaku a better attorney? Or both just have a loud mouth?
Lots of Antigua Lawyers always cause people to loose cases because of their poor work ethics. They fail to show up in court for hearing so often that they contribute to the delays of cases. They along with the court would set a date for a case and when your case calls they have another matter in the other court.
Can you imagine a lawyer having my case file for an entire year and on the day of the case. I walked up to him and he is asking me what my case is about again. I had to pay 65 thousand dollars because he did not file a defense and walked into the court asking for more time. It’s time for people to demand their money back from these lazy or crooks, call lawyers.
Same thing with Antigua police, after months, sometimes years they walk into a court and tell the magistrate or Judge that they are not ready. They cannot find their file or they cannot find the plaintiff or defendant. When questioned they made no effort. They are also guilty of bringing wrong charges to the court.
This case with Anthony Smith is a typical example. This is a lawyer that has a show on ABS TV , explaining how we should approach legal matters. The UPP political party made a big issue about this . This would have been a perfect case study for future rulings. Only to hear that these so call lawyers dropped the ball big time. Especially at a time when the UPP is at rock bottom. After all this time, this case the set aside because of these lawyers made all this blunder.
It’s time that the court awards the plaintiff as well, when lawyers fail to do their jobs.
Hey @ [un]faithful national #1, the one positive to take from this TOTAL miscarriage of justice, is if our Governor General Rodney Williams can appeal to a higher overseas court/judiciary to save Gaston Browne’s skin in recent times; then surely the All Saints West 3 can do likewise.
MAKES SENSE DOESN’T IT?
An immediate appeal on behalf of All the voting public (whatever your political persuasion) in Antigua would restore some semblance of democracy.
LET’S HOPE THAT THE FULL COURSE OF THIS GROUNDBREAKING CASE TAKE PLACE INDEPENDENTLY …
This decision by this woman, justice Jan Drysdale, should be seen for what it is, only as comfort to a fool, while Anthony Smith, Gaston Browne, and their followers, should be prepared for an appeal on this matter.
There is something foundermentally wrong with this case. A president has been now set, in allowing political candidates to be voted into parliament as an opposition and then eventually ended up becoming a member of Cabinet and a Minister of the government, while not being seen as not crossing the floor.
If this situation is applicable to independent members of parliament, then it must be also applicable to members of the opposition, which has obviously thrown the true validity of the Cabinet into confusion.
This case must be appeal and allows the pros and cons to be fully be debated once and for all, even at the Previ Council, whom are the true Architects of System of Government.
To dismiss this case on a technicality, is a foul blow delivered by Justice Drysdale, to our Democracy, in her haste to award the Government Bench, as winner, instead of allowing the claimants to resubmit their case, before awarding justice.
Antiguans and Barbudans are still left in a state of confusion as far as this case is concerned. And if by any chance our Constitution made allowance for such kind of abnormalty and absurdity, it ought to be changed.
I Totally agree with you @ Vincent C Parker that a resubmission of this case should be readmitted, so that as you rightly put it that the “pros and cons” of this court case can be fully heard and addressed.
If the All Saints West 3 lose this case fair and square, I have no problem at all, but for Jan Drysdale to dismiss this without a correct readmission by the defence team, seems not only out of kilter with our Justice system, but also giving a helping hand to the current government.
I hope the Caribbean Court of Justice or the UK’S Privy Counsel (like how the Governor General did to help out the Prime Minister) take an interest, and take up the cudgel for the All Saints West 3 …
Vincent C Parker the last sentence of your comment is quite instructive. I would say that from my reading of the Constitution and particularly sections 41 (1) (e) and 69 (4), it would appear that the Constitution does allow for what you describe as an abnormality and absurdity. It is an example such as that that underscores the need for constitutional reform. The Anthony Smith saga is therefore neither illegal nor unconstitutional although it appears odd and unethical.
Comments are closed.