Caribbean News Now!

About Us Contact Us

Countries/Territories

Jump to your country or territory of interest

WARNING: NON US RESIDENTS ONLY

Advertise with us

Reach our daily visitors from around the Caribbean and throughout the world. Click here for rates and placements.

Contribute

Submit news and opinion for publication

Subscribe

Click here to receive our daily regional news headlines by email.

Archives

Click here to browse our extensive archives going back to 2004

Also, for the convenience of our readers and the online community generally, we have reproduced the complete Caribbean Net News archives from 2004 to 2010 here.

Climate Change Watch

The Caribbean is especially vulnerable to rising sea levels brought about by global warming. Read the latest news and information here...

Follow Caribbean News Now on Twitter
Connect with Caribbean News Now on Linkedin
Instagram



News from the Caribbean:




Legal
Prev    Next
Grenada court rules against liquidator
Published on April 27, 2017Email To Friend    Print Version

By Rush TV contributor

ST GEORGE’S, Grenada -- By way of judgment dated April 13, 2017, in the matter of Bank Crozier Limited (in liquidation) [through Garvey Louison, liquidator] and RBTT Bank Grenada Limited, Madame Justice Gilford ruled that:

1. The claim is struck out for failure to comply with the order of the Master.

2. In light of the ruling of the court, the court does not see the need to address its mind to the application of the claimant for lifting of the stay.

The effect of this judgment is to strike out the liquidator’s claim leaving only a possibility of an application to the court of appeal.

garvey_louison.jpg
Garvey Louison
By way of background, RBTT bank transferred the sum of US$2 million out of the account held by Louison, liquidator for Bank Crozier Limited at its branch in Grand Anse, St George’s, Grenada.

At that point the bank’s only defence was that a consent agreement signed between the liquidator and BCIL St Lucia (in Liquidation) in 2005 had provided them the authority to release the money from the liquidator’s account without his signature or knowledge.

This defence broke down when it was revealed that there was a stay on the consent agreement clearing the way for the liquidator to lodge a claim before the court.

The claim was brought by Louison, liquidator for Bank Crozier Limited (in liquidation) on the ruling of Madame Justice Price-Findlay, that:

1. The liquidator of Bank Crozier Limited (in liquidation), Louison, is hereby authorized to institute a claim in the name of Bank Crozier Limited (in liquidation) against RBTT Bank Grenada Limited of Grand Anse, St George’s, Grenada, for:

Damages and losses, interest and cost and such further and other relief sustained as a result of its release, disbursement, and/or transfer of the sum of US$2 million from its account held therein to BCIL (St Lucia) (in liquidation) in breach of the orders of the court dated 29 November 2005 and 21 December 2005.

The bank’s second line of defence was that the liquidator should lodge US$50,000 as security for costs in the event that the court rules against him. The liquidator lodged the security for costs one minute late. RBTT applied that the claim be stuck of for the failure of the liquidator to comply with the order of the court. The court struck off the claim.

Legal luminaries are shocked by the stance taken by the court. They cite the principle of “de minimus non curat lex”. Under this principle, the court has a duty to examine the breach by a party and to weigh its sanctions against the substrata of the case. This Latin maxim roughly translated means “the law cares not for small things". Under this legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters.

According to the current legal thinking, in considering striking out a claim the court considers the parties’ pleaded case. No additional evidence is considered by the court. The pleaded facts are presumed to be true. The court would only strike out a claim where the statement of case discloses no reasonable cause of action or in the words of the chief justice “is plainly bad in law”.

In striking out the claim, the judge refused to consider the likelihood of success of the underlying claim. It would appear that the liquidator has grounds for filing an appeal.
 
Reads : 5868






Click here to receive daily news headlines from Caribbean News Now!



Back...

Comments:

No comments on this topic yet. Be the first one to submit a comment.

Back...

Send us your comments!  

Send us your comments on this article. All fields are required.

For your contribution to reach us, you must (a) provide a valid e-mail address and (b) click on the validation link that will be sent to the e-mail address you provide.  If the address is not valid or you don't click on the validation link, it will be a waste of your time typing your submission because we will never see it!

Your Name:

Your Email:

(Validation required)

Comments:
Enter Code *

 


Prev    Next

 

chicago rlto
DUI Lawyer in Tacoma, WA
Timeshare cancellation
Private Investigators

WARNING: NON US RESIDENTS ONLY



Other Headlines:



Regional Sports: