|
|
Legal Process | Administration | Dress Code | Notice of Call Over | Bottom
TAKE NOTICE that the following appeals have been set down for hearing before the Honourable Chief Justice, Sir Burton Hall, on Wednesday, the 29th day of September A.D. 2004 at 10:00 a.m.
| APPEAL NO. | PARTIES | ATTORNEYS |
| 2002/11 | Desmond Munnings v. Commissioner of Police | Attorney General
Evans & Co. |
| 2002/10 | Tadra Rahming v. Commissioner of Police | Attorney General
Evans & Co. |
| 2002/3 | Anthony Romer v.
Baldwin Johnson and Frederick Rolle |  |
| 2002/51 | Philip Christie v. Harold Gardiner | |
| 2001/8 | Kevin A. Black v. Commissioner of Police | Attorney General |
| 2001/44 | Sylvia Price v. Lisa A. R. Knowles | |
| 2003/38 | Charles Pratt v. Jane Johnson-Roberts | Michael H. Kemp & Co. |
| 2001/6 | Maurius Merizier and Hellarian Butler v. Director of Immigration | Attorney General |
| 2003/5 | Paul Rolle v. Cheyanne N. Rolle | Holoweski & Company
Andrew Thompson |
| 2003/16 | Commissioner of Police v. Gary Rolle, Jefferson Rolle, Noel Rolle,
Jamie Renaldo, Hosea Satana,
Pablo Gomez, Hayward Sweeting
Lenroy Johnson, Ellis Neely
Thomas Bowe AND Ezekiel Moss | Attorney General
Andrew Thompson
Langton Hilton |
| 2002/12 | Vincent Gaitor v. Joanne Gaitor | Wells & Wells |
| 2003/32 | Carl Nesbitt v. Marsha Munnings | Lockhart & Munroe |
| 1999/77 | Philip Deveaux v. Donnell Symonette | Godfrey W. Pinder
Sharon Wilson & Co. |
| 2003/36 | Clever Duncombe v.Antonia Deleveaux | Wells & Wells |
| 2002/14 | Deborah Ann Munnings v.
Commissioner of Police | Attorney General
Evans & Co. |
| 2002/19 | Brent Johnson v.
Wendy Johnson | Wells & Wells |
| 2003/49 | Perez Butler v.
Yvonne Seymour | Lockhart & Munroe |
| 2002/17 | Andy Bethel v.
Elena Lindzon and
Jerry Lindzon | Wells & Wells |
| 2002/9 | Gloria Ramburun v.
Kookaram Ramburun | Braynen Symonette & Co Wells & Wells |
| 2002/1 | Kirkwood Munnings v.
Hermine Thompson | Wells & Wells
Minnis & Co. |
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that should you fail to attend on the date and at the time above-mentioned, such order may be made in your absence as the Court deems fit.
Dated the 6th day of September A.D. 2004
LIST OF APPEALS SET BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, SIR BURTON HALL ON TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY A.D. 2004, AT 10:00 A.M.
| APPEAL NO. | PARTIES | ATTORNEYS |
| 10/2000 | Michael A. Burrows v. Kevin Curry | Ian Jupp & Co.
Wells & Wells |
| 13/2003 | Richard Johnson v.
Carlos D. spencer | |
| 50/2002 | Eleazer Ferguson v.
Ivan Forbes | Shadrach Morris, Jr. & Co. |
| 44/2001 | Sylvia Price v.
Lisa A. R. Knowles | Eliezer Regnier & Co. |
| 21/2002 | Angelo McKenzie v.
Huey Johnson | C. A. Martin & Co.
Miriam J. Curling & Co. |
| 38/2003 | Charles Pratt v.
Jane Johnson-Roberts | Dennis Gomez & Co. |
| 44/2000 | Bertram Knowles v.
Natasha Astwood | Lockhart & Munroe |
| 5/2003 | Paul Rolle v.
Cheyanne N. Rolle | Holowesko & Co.
Mr. Andrew Thompson |
| 24/2001 | Ashland Murray v.
Sheila Williams | Sharon Wilson & Co. |
LIST OF APPEALS SET BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, SIR BURTON HALL ON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY A.D. 2004, AT 10:00 A.M.
| APPEAL NO. | PARTIES | ATTORNEYS |
| 21/2001 | Derek Munroe v. Tamica Fowler | Lockhart & Munroe |
| 3/2001 | Alice Bullard,
Julian Gibson and
Vernon Burrows v.
Rosalie V. Gibson | Ian Bethel & Co.
Nottage, Miller & Co. |
| 2/2003 | Alex Davis v.
Lindal Davis | Wells & Wells |
| 77/1999 | Philip Deveaux v. Donnell Symonette | Sharon Wilson & Co.
Godfrey Pinder & Co. |
| 101/1998 | Jerome Coakley v. Biafia L. Barry | Dennis Gomez & Co. |
| 20/2002 | Lamont M. Davis v. Duran Humes | Arnold Forbes
T. Langton Hilton & Co. |
| 49/2000 | Leroy Smith v.
Jerome Anthony | Michael H. Kemp & Co. |
PRACTICE DIRECTION No. 1 of 1977
(as revised)
RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS FILED IN
THE REGISTRY
“ I have been requested by the Editor of a well-known newspaper to clarify the right to inspect and obtain copies of documents which have been filed at the Registry of the Supreme Court. Before responding to this request, it seemed desirable to consult my colleagues on the Bench, the Registrar and a Senior Attorney . . . So far as I am aware, this Direction conforms entirely to the position in England. “Knowles C J
23 May 1977
By section 15 of the Supreme Court Act, Ch 53 (“the Act”):
15. The jurisdiction vested in the Court shall so far as regards procedure and practice, be exercised -
(a) in the manner provided by this Act or by rules of court;
(b) where no such provision has been made, in accordance with former
practice as near as may be; or
(c) where there is no former practice, in such manner as seems to the
Court just and practicable in the circumstances.
The original version of this practice direction had its provenance in the concern recited in its opening paragraphs, quoted above. Notwithstanding the subsequent adoption of new Rules in 1978, the repeal and replacement of the Supreme Court Act in 1996 and the revision of the English provisions on which that practice direction relied (being incorporated by reference in accordance with the then extant Rule 2 of the Bahamian Rules of the Supreme Court of 1961) that direction continues, mutatis mutandis, to govern local practice by virtue of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 15 of the Act
This practice direction deals only with documents in proceedings other than criminal proceedings and they fall conveniently under three heads.
1. Proceedings in Divisions of the Supreme Court other than the Family and Probate Divisions.
By Order 60 Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court:
(1) Any person shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled during office hours to search for, inspect and take a copy of any of the following documents filed in the Registry, namely -
(a) the copy of any writ of summons or other originating process,
(b) any judgment or order given or made in court or the copy of any such judgment or order, and
(c) with the leave of the Court, which may be granted on an application made ex parte, any other document.
(2) Nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be taken as preventing any party to a cause or matter searching for, inspecting and taking or bespeaking a copy of any affidavit or other document filed in the Registry in that cause or matter but made with a view to its commencement.
The commentary on the equivalent English rule from which our rule is derived, note 63/4/1 of The Supreme Court Practice 1997, states:
This rule defines the nature and extent of the right to search for, inspect and take a copy of documents filed in the [Registry] . . . It makes an important distinction between the right of search and inspection enjoyed by a party to a cause or matter which is unrestricted in respect of all documents, including affidavits filed in that cause or matter with a view to its commencement, and the right of search and inspection enjoyed by a member of the public, which is restricted to the documents particularly specified in paras. (1) and (2). The effect of this restriction is to exclude the right of the public to search for and inspect the following documents, namely (i) affidavits; (ii) depositions taken before an examiner, and (iii) judgments and orders given or made in Chambers. The principle on which these documents are excluded from the public right of inspection would appear to be that they are all interlocutory in character and may or may not be used or affect the justice of the case when the cause or matter comes to be heard in open Court. Nevertheless, even in respect of such documents, the leave of the Court may be obtained for search and inspection by a person not a party on an application made ex parte . . . but it conceived that very cogent reasons would be required before such leave is granted. . . .
2. Proceedings in the Family Division.
As it would appear that The Bahamas has no rule which is directly in point, I direct that the right of inspection of documents shall be governed, with necessary adaptations, by Rule 130 of The English Matrimonial Causes Rules 1973, which reads as follows:
(1) A party to any matrimonial proceedings or his solicitor or the Queen’s Proctor may have a search made for, and may inspect and bespeak a copy of, any document filed or lodged in the court office in those proceedings.
(2) . . . [No] document filed or lodged in the [Registry], other than a decree or order made in open court, shall be open to inspection by any person without the leave of the registrar, and no copy of any such document, or of an extract from any such document, shall be taken by, or issued to, any person without such leave.
3. Proceedings in the Probate Division
The directions relating to the Family Division shall, with the necessary modifications, apply.
The attention of the public is drawn to the statement of the law made by
Sir Donald Nicholls V C in Dobson v Hastings [1992] 2 All E R 94 as summarised in the headnote of that case which, so far as is relevant, reads:
“It was a contempt of court or, as it was better described, an interference with the administration of justice either to inspect documents on a court file without leave if it was known that leave was required or to gain access to a court file by deception of court officials or subterfuge since the court file was not a publicly available register but a file maintained by the court for the proper conduct of proceedings to which, apart from the writ or other originating process and judgments and court orders, the public had a restricted right of access, and then generally only with the leave of the court, until documents filed in court were used in open court.”
Issued 23 May 1977, by
Leonard J Knowles
Chief Justice
Revised and re-issued
22 April 2004
Burton P C Hall
Chief Justice |