The Honourable Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands v Sean Sullivan
Jurisdiction | Turks and Caicos Islands |
Judge | Mr Justice Anthony S. Gruchot |
Judgment Date | 19 January 2024 |
Docket Number | ACTION NO. CL-53/20 |
Court | Supreme Court (Turks and Caicos) |
The Hon. Mr Justice Anthony S. Gruchot
ACTION NO. CL-53/20
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Mr Lawrence Harris and Mr Oliver McGlashan of Cooley (UK) LLP and Ms Clemar Hippolyte of the Attorney General's Chambers for the Plaintiff
Mr Conrad Griffiths KC of Griffiths & Partners for the Defendant
At the close of the Plaintiffs evidence in the afternoon of the second day of the trial in this matter Mr. Griffiths KC raised the question as to whether I was to put the Defendant to his election.
By this he indicated that he was desirous of making an application of no case to answer. He referred me to the authority of Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 92 which he submitted is the leading case on this issue.
He submits that this is an exceptional case such that he should be allowed to make his submission of no case to answer, before the Defendant elects whether to call evidence.
At paragraph 6 of Graham Lord Justice Brooke, giving the judgment of the court said this:
“ I am sorry that there is still any lingering uncertainty as to the practice to be followed if a defendant's advocate wishes to persuade a judge to enter judgment in his client's favour at the conclusion of the claimants evidence. In pre CPR days the rules were quite clear.”
I pause there as this was a case from England and Wales in 2006 following the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. Those Rules are not applicable to the Turks and Caicos Islands which operates under the Civil Procedure Rules 2000. Guidance to those Rules is taken from the White Book of England and Wales 1999.
Lord Justice Brooke continues:
“ In Alexander v Rayson [1936] 1 KB 169 this court said (at p 178) that this was not only irregular but a most inconvenient procedure; and (at p 180) that it sincerely trusted “that the like may never occur again”. In Lawrie v Raglan [1942] 1 KB 152 Lord Greene MR said in a similar situation that it was unfortunate that the trial judge did not follow the practice
“which ought to be followed in such cases, as has been quite clearly laid down in this court, of refusing to rule on the submission unless counsel for the defendant said he was going to call no evidence. That must be regarded as the proper practice to follow.””
The White Book 1999 at Note 37/7/3 states:
“… it is inconvenient for the Judge to rule there is no case for a jury without hearing the defendant's evidence … as to the inconvenience of asking a judge sitting alone to hold that there is no case to answer at the conclusion of the evidence of the party on whom the owners lies, see Alexander v Rayson. The judge should generally refuse to rule on such a submission by the defendant unless he makes it clear that he does not intend to call evidence ( Laurie v Raglan Co.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial