The Hon. Miss Justice Anne-Marie A. Nembhard

Negligence – Damage to property – The duty of care owed by utility company to homeowner – Breach of the duty of care – Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur – Causation – Foreseeability of damage – Remoteness of damage – Basis on which damages are to be assessed – Whether special damages have been specifically pleaded and specifically proven – Quantum of damages – Whether the court should deviate from the breach date rule in the assessment of damages in the interest of justice

Civil procedure – Defence – Whether the defence filed amounts to a bare denial – Application to strike out portions of witness statement on the basis that it introduces facts not pleaded – Defence of automatism – Application to strike out defence of automatism – Res judicata – Doctrine of res judicata – Issue estoppel – Doctrine of issue estoppel – Civil Procedure Rules, 2002 – Rules 10.5, 20.1, 20.4, 26.3, 1.1 and 1.2

Wills – Construction – The appropriate construction to be applied to particular clause in a will – Whether fee simple absolute was bequeathed – Whether will created a settlement – Perpetuities – The rule against perpetuities – Whether particular clause in the will offends the rule against perpetuities – Whether particular clause in the will is void for uncertainty – Repugnancy – The doctrine of repugnancy – Whether particular clause in the will infringes the doctrine of repugnancy – Recovery of funds expended in accordance with the will – The Wills Act, section 23, The Settled Land Act, sec

Damages – Trespass – Assessment – Expert evidence – Tax element – Effect of taxation on large fund of damages – Basis on which damages is to be assessed – Quantum of damages

Judicial review – Constructive dismissal – Whether a constructive dismissal constitutes a termination of employment as contemplated by the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, sections 2 and 11
Costs – Whether a cost order should properly be made in the circumstances – Whether it is appropriate for a cost order to be made against an intervening party, 
Civil Procedure Rules, 2002, rules 56.15(4) and (5), 64.3, 64.6(1), 64.6(3), 64.6(4)(a),(b),(d)(i) and (ii), (e)(i), (ii) and (iii), 64.6(4)(f) and 64.6(4)(g)

Evidence – Witness summons and witness summary issued by a party for an opposing party – Validity of witness summons – Application to strike out witness summary – Application to strike out portions of the claimants’ statement of case on the basis that it is a collateral attack on a previous decision of the privy council – Civil Procedure Rules, rules 29.6 (3), 33.2, 33.3(4) and 33.3(5)

Tort – Wrongful interference with goods – Detinue – Conversion –The Transport Authority Act, sections, 13, 13A, 15, 16A, The Road Traffic Act, section 61(4A) and 61(4B)

Constitutional law – Constitutionality and validity of good faith certificates – Whether good faith certificates infringe the doctrine of separation of powers – Whether good faith certificates supersede the prosecutorial powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions – Whether good faith certificates which were issued outside of the period of emergency are ultra vires, null and void – The Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council, 1962, Emergency Powers Act, section 3, Emergency Powers Regulations, 2010, regulations 45 and 46

Civil Procedure – Claim form not served on the 2nd defendant prior to the expiration of its validity – Whether the claimant can properly proceed on that claim form against the 2nd defendant – Whether the 2nd defendant waived the service of the claim form by his participation in the proceedings – Whether the action is now statute barred – Whether the claimant can properly proceed against the ancillary defendant on the ancillary claim form – Limitation of Actions Act, 1881, section 46, Limitation Act, 21 Ja. I, c.

Negligence – Motor vehicle collision – Whether the ancillary defendant is liable – Expert evidence – Weight – Parties instructing different forensic experts in accident reconstruction – Expert evidence directly conflicting with ancillary claimant’s evidence – Conflicting expert witness testimony – Quantum of damages