There were 2 matters before the Court. The 1st was the Plaintiff’s hearing for the assessment of damages (against the 2nd Defendant) following an Order made in September [purportedly] striking out the 2nd Defendant’s defence and entering judgment on liability against the 2nd Defendant for non-compliance with an unless order. The 2nd was on the 2nd Defendant’s summons filed to set aside the September Order.
This is a ruling in respect of an application by which the defendants invoke the provisions of s. 21 of the Constitution, alleging that, ss. 38, 41 and 42 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance “curtail the right of the accused to have the last word” and are therefore unconstitutional, as they contravene sections 1 and 6 of the Constitution which provide for a fair hearing in a criminal trial.
This is a decision following an inter parties hearing of an application for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from selling a parcel of land by auction.
This is a ruling on a custody application concerning two children D and J. On 27th October 2022, social services submitted a Report containing recommendations on custody, including recommendations that the children be separated, with J being returned to father for school while D remained with mother and that the children be separated during school holidays.
This is a ruling on two separate applications pursuant to Ord. 53 r.3 (3) for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of Lobban-Jackson J in each case, to refuse the grant of bail to the Applicants.
This is a ruling on three applications in respect of orders made in a claim brought against the estate of the deceased; (1) for leave to appeal summary judgement, (2) for a stay and (3) for a charging order to be made absolute,
This is a ruling on 3 applications (1) for leave to appeal summary judgment, (2) for a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal (3) a Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiff for the issue of a writ of sequestration by way of enforcement of the judgment.
This is a ruling on an application seeking that the Defendant attend at the Supreme Court, Providenciales, to be examined orally, by way of video-conferencing, at a hearing to be held before the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court, Number 11, Buenos Aries, Argentine Republic.
This is a ruling made prior to the determination of an application for ancillary financial relief in divorce proceedings following a change of the judicial officer with conduct of the proceedings, arising out of the Court's concerns as to the appearance of apparent or apprehended judicial bias.
This is a ruling on an application seeking permission to rely on variations to s.72 of the Registered Land Ordinance contained within a charge and to be able to sell a property by private treaty.
The Defendant, Ramon Andrews applied to the Court pursuant to ss.20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 2018 for the amended information to be quashed; that no leave be granted for the amended information to be further amended and for any further orders deemed fit to be made.
This is a ruling on an application made pursuant to Ord.45 r.11 for a stay of an order made in divorce proceedings concerning the day-to-day care and control of children pending determination of an appeal of that order.
