Skip to main content

Vision 

A world-class judiciary utilizing innovation and technology for efficient service delivery.

Mission

To provide sound, timely judgements and efficient court services in an environment where all stakeholders are valued.

Coral Cove Management Limited v Croskery, Hugh Maybury and Sara Meany (Nee Croskery) et al

Application for interim injunction pursuant to section  49(h) Judicature (Supreme Court) Act – rule 17.1(a), 17.1(4) and 17.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2002 – Whether right of first refusal gives the applicant an equitable interest in property - Whether there is a serious issue to be tried - Whether damages an adequate remedy – Balance of convenience - Whether injunction is mandatory or prohibitory - Likely prejudice - Preservation of status quo

Evanko, Susan (Executrix of the Estate of Stephan Jurik) v Yetman, Dasa and Zusanna Brechova Soucek et al

Application for removal of Executrix - Duties of an Executrix - Fiduciary duties of Executrix Section 7 of the Trustees Attorneys and Executors (Accounts and General) Act - Section 2 of the Mental Health Act - whether Executrix liable for self-dealing - Whether Executrix mismanaged the affairs of the Estate - Failure to keep proper accounts - Whether beneficiary has capacity to sell his interest in the Estate - Undue influence

Supreme Ventures Limited v Prime Sports (Jamaica) Limited and Fair Trading Commission

Appeal against the findings of the Fair Trading Commission - Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - Sections 7, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 49 of the Fair Competition Act - Part 60 Civil Procedure Rules, 2002 - Anti-competitive practices - Whether hearing should have been held- whether sufficient opportunity to be heard afforded - Whether an expressed promise or policy establishes a legitimate expectation - Whether there is a breach of procedural fairness

Chandiramani, Aikaterini and Navin Chandiramani v Coast & Land Hospitality Expert Limited and Maurice Grannum

Preliminary Point - Application to commence derivative action – Company Law - sections 174A and 212 of the Companies Act – Whether application to bring
derivative action can be commenced by way of Notice of Application for Court Orders - Whether a company director should be a named Respondent

The Assets Recovery Agency v Hamilton, Andrew, Dorothy Hamilton, Andrew Hamilton Construction Limited et al

Sections 55, 56, 57, 58, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 89 of the Proceeds of Crime Act - Rules 8.3 (1), 10.8, 10.9, 10.10 of The Judicature (Supreme Court) (Proceeds of Crime) Rules, 2021 - Parts 10 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2002- Application for Leave to Enter Judgment in absence of Defence - Civil recovery orders- Recoverable property - Unlawful conduct - Default judgment

Subscribe to The Hon. Mrs. Justice Stephane Jackson-Haisley