Archibald et Al v Hunkins

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1976
• Neutral Citation: KN 1976 HC 2
• Docket Number: No. 4 of 1975
• Date: 08 May 1976

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 4 of 1975

Archibald et al

and

Hunkins

Appearances:

E Walwyn for plaintiffs

C.F. Henville for defendant

Statute - West Indies Supreme Court Act, 1975.

Facts: The plaintiff sought determination of the Court on the interpretation of section 74(1) of the West Indies Supreme Court Act 1975 on whether a Queen's Council is entitled to tax and recover costs as a solicitor in a mater in which he named himself as solicitor having regard to section 78 of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Act 1975. The court answered the question in the affirmative.

Held: That if a contrary intention was intended it would have been manifest in section 70(1) of the new Act.

Glasgow, J.

1 By originating summons dated the 5 ^th March 1976, the plaintiffs seek the determination of the Court on the following questions, namely: –

• (a) the interpretation of s. 74(1) of the West Indies Association States Supreme Court (St. Christopher Nevis and Anguilla) Act 1975, No. 17 of 1975

• (b) Is C.F. Henville Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel (Q.C.) entitled to tax and recover costs as a Solicitor in the above matter on which he names himself as Solicitor having regard to the provisions of s. 78 of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla) Act, 1975 No.17 of 1975.

2 Section 74(1) of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla) Act 1975, (No. 17 of 1975) – hereinafter referred to as the new Supreme Court Act reads as follows: –

“74. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section no barrister who has the rank of Queen's Counsel whether in this State or elsewhere, shall perform any of the function which in England are performed by a solicitor and are not performed by a barrister; but a barrister who has the rank of Queen's Counsel shall not be precluded from continuing or engaging in partnership with another barrister by reason only that such last mentioned barrister performs any functions as aforesaid”

3 Subsection (1) of s. 74 of the new Supreme Court Act is so clearly worded, that an attempt to interpret it may well result in little more than a repetition of the said subsection. The subsection provides that except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of s. 74 of the new Supreme Court Act, no barrister who has the rank of Queen's Counsel whether in this State or elsewhere, shall perform any of the functions which in England are performed by a solicitor and are not performed by a barrister. The said subsection (1) also provides that a barrister who has the rank of Queen's counsel shall not be precluded from continuing or engaging in partnership with another barrister by reason only that such last mentioned barrister performs any functions as aforesaid.

4 Before the question at (b) above can be answered, it will be necessary to consider, among other things, the relevant evidence, the provisions of s. 17 of the repealed Supreme Court Act, Cap. 79 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Supreme Court Act), s. 70(1) of the new Supreme Court Act and some of the rules relating to the construction of statutes.

5 No affidavit was filed in...