CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
Yesterday, the High Court of Justice heard three applications in the case of Captain Willock versus the Chief of Defence Staff of the Antigua Barbuda Defence Force and others.
The first application dealt with Willock’s request for disclosure of certain documents and audio recordings.
The Defendants initially opposed Willock’s application but later opted to provide some of the requested information. The Defendants maintained that their efforts to retrieve the audio recordings were unsuccessful.
We understand that the Court took the view that there was already enough up-to-date evidence, so Willock’s application was refused without him incurring any penalty.
The Court then heard Willock’s application to move the matter to summary trial and the ABDF’s application for an extension of time jointly. Both applications have a direct correlation on each other, meaning that if one succeeds, the other automatically fails.
Justice Williams found that there was an inordinate delay by the ABDF in applying for the extension and that the ABDF had no good reason for not filing a defense in time.
However, in the final analysis, the judge opted to grant the extension until today (February 12, 2025) and impose cost against the defendants in the sum of $2000, which must be paid to Willock within 21 days.
The case is now scheduled for pre-trial review at the beginning of April, with the parties having an opportunity to file legal submissions before then.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
it would be better if cases like this didn’t drag on for so long. The public deserves timely justice.
Let’s hope we see progress in April.
I hope this a fair case.
I can’t see how the ABDF respondent couldn’t find time to prepare for the case file et al, inertia. As it seems a policy abound to delay, in the execution of timely justice; and, for the convenience of snail justice impacts by whom to be abstractly delay or denied; and so left binding . As if evidence is to be dammed by the occurrence at hand: exclude or exclusive to, What! Eh?
Comments are closed.