2015

Summary Judgment – Defendant’s Application to Strike Out Claim – Whether the Bank of Jamaica has a duty to intervene in private banking contracts – Whether commercial banks have a duty to investigate fraud before issuing mortgages – Banking Act s. 39 and s. 41 – Registration of Titles Act s. 71 and s. 263

Judicial Review – Was the vehicle uncustomed goods – Locus Standi – Can the court make orders about the Claimant’s equitable rights in the absence of the legal owner – Was the vehicle unlawfully seized by the agents of the Jamaica Customs department – Abuse of Process – The Customs Act, s. 2, 19, 91, 210, 219 and 259.
Costs – No Orders as to Costs – Civil Procedure Rules, 2002, Part 64

Judicial Review – Jurisdiction of the Registration Appeals Tribunal – Was there a refusal by the Board to register the applicants as pharmacists – Competence – Does the Registration Appeals Tribunal have the power to make a decision after the expiry of its term in office – Conduct of the Appeal Hearing – The Pharmacy Act, s. 4, 11, 15 and 16, First Schedule s. 9 and Second Schedule s.8 

Application for Custody – Governing principle: welfare of the child is the
first and paramount consideration - Application for Maintenance – Parties
means for the purpose of determining capacity to pay maintenance.

Negligence - Whether the defendants should be held responsible for the physical injury sustained to the claimant by a person who he had no control over - Whether the defendants could rely on the exclusion clause to exempt themselves from liability - Whether the security guard was negligent in failing to prevent the attack on the claimant - Whether the defendants were liable for the dog bites.

Family Home – Whether Claimant entitled to one half share therein principles – Property (Rights of Spouses) Act – Whether one half share rule to be varied – Principles to be applied.

Detinue - Date of cause of action - Measure of damages

Attorney/client – Application by former client to remove attorney and firm from representing bank – Whether attorney can be prevented from acting against former client