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.

Knott, Aleisha v Myrie, Copeland

Breach of Contract - Whether the Defendant is liable for failing to complete the modification of the unfinished building - Whether the Claimant breached the contract for failing to pay the Defendant in a timely manner - Whether the Defendant is in breach of the contract for leaving the work site - Whether the Defendant should be compensated for additional works.

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

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