Reginald Anthony Hull Appellant v [1] The Attorney-General of St. Christopher and Nevis [2] The Social Security Board Respondents [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Mitchell JA [AG.],Don Mitchell
• Judgment Date: 10 June 2013
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2013] ECSC J0610-5
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Docket Number: SKBHCVAP2012/0029
• Date: 10 June 2013

[2013] ECSC J0610-5

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

FEDERATION OF SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Don Mitchell Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

SKBHCVAP2012/0029

Between:

Reginald Anthony Hull

Appellant

and

[1] The Attorney-General of St. Christopher and Nevis

[2] The Social Security Board

Respondents

Civil appeal — Tort — Wrongful arrest — False imprisonment — Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act –Crown Proceedings Act — Warrant for Commitment — Bailiff executing warrant — Whether bailiff was discharging responsibility in connection with the execution of judicial process — Whether Crown entitled to immunity from suit

Two Warrants of Commitment ("the Warrants") directed to the arrest of a company of which the appellant was a director, was executed by a Bailiff on the appellant. The appellant was committed to prison where he was held for two days and eventually released by an order of the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant brought a claim against the Social Security Board ("the Board") as procurers of the signature of the magistrate to the Warrants and against the Crown as employer of the Bailiff seeking damages and aggravated damages for the torts of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The claim form was filed on 15^th June and served on the two respondents more than six months later. The appellant's claim was that the Attorney-General was liable for the acts and omissions of the Bailiff as an employee of the Federal Government and therefore a servant of the Crown. He claimed further that he lost his liberty for 47 hours due to the actions of the Bailiff on the request of the Board.

Both respondents failed to file a defence to the claim. They however filed an acknowledgement of service and further filed an application that the claim be struck out for various reasons. The Attorney General's application was supported by an affidavit of the Solicitor General which disclosed inter alia that the claim offended the provisions of section 4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act which ousts liability of the Crown for anything done by a person while purporting to discharge any responsibilities which he has in connection with the execution of judicial process, and it was improper and unreasonable for the Crown to be called upon to attempt a defence to it. The Board's application urged that the appellant had not complied with section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act which required him to institute his claim against the Board within the period of six months. The appellant then filed an application for default judgment due to the respondents' failure to file a defence.

The matter came on for hearing before the master who found that the defendant to the Warrants was the company; this made the Warrants invalid as a warrant of arrest must be issued against a living person and not a company. This in turn made the arrest of the appellant illegal. Nonetheless, the Bailiff fell within the category of persons who attract a clear judicial mandate to allow them to carry out their function, which is to carry out the direct orders of the court. That being the case, the Crown was not liable for anything done by the police or prison officers who arrested and detained a person while discharging their responsibilities in connection with the execution of a judicial process. The master granted the striking-out orders sought by the Board and the Crown, dismissed the appellant's application for default judgment and awarded costs to the respondents to be paid by the appellant.

The appellant filed an appeal seeking an order that judgment in default of defence be entered against the Board; in the alternative he seeks an order that his claim against the Board and the Crown shall continue as pleaded and for the respondents to file and serve their defence within 28 days.

Held: dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents in the amount of two thirds of any sum assessed in their favour in the court below, that:

• 1. The effect of filing a strike-out application must be to prevent the entering of judgment in default. It is indeed proper procedure for applications to be dealt with in the order that they are filed. The appellant's application for the default judgment was filed after the respondents' application to strike out the claim. A litigant who makes a genuine application to strike out a claim, regardless of the rule under which he applies, ought not to be required, purely to stop time from running, to incur the expense of filing a defence to the very claim that he is asking the court to strike out.

  St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd. v Caribbean 6/49 Limited Saint Christopher and Nevis High Court Civil Appeal SKBHCVAP2002/0006 followed.

• 2. Section 4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act states that no proceedings shall lie against the Crown in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any person while discharging or purporting to discharge any responsibilities of a judicial nature vested in him or her, or any responsibilities which he or she has in connection with the execution of judicial process. A Bailiff executing a warrant of commitment on a judgment summons would be a person discharging a responsibility in connection with the execution of judicial process. Accordingly, the appellant's case was statute barred and the master was correct to so hold.

  Section 4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act applied.

Mitchell JA [AG.]

1 Reginald Anthony Hull1 was arrested by a Bailiff of the Basseterre Magistrate's Court 2 on two Warrants of Commitment 3 issued by the magistrate. He was committed to prison, where he was held for two days before his attorneys secured his release in habeas corpus proceedings. Alleging he was wrongfully arrested and falsely imprisoned, Mr. Hull instructed his attorneys to sue the Crown as employer of the Bailiff and to sue the Social Security Board 4 as the person who had procured the signature of the magistrate to the Warrants on which he was arrested. He sought damages and aggravated damages for the torts of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The gist of Mr. Hull's claim was that the Board had obtained two civil judgments against the company of which he was a director, the Warrants had been directed to the arrest of the company, and the Bailiff had instead illegally arrested him.

2 Mr. Hull was arrested and imprisoned on 11^th December 2011, and his claim form was filed on 15^th June 2012 and served on the two respondents on 20^th June 2012, more than six months later. From his attached statement of claim it appears that the Board is a body corporate created by the Social Security Act. 5 A bailiff of the Magistrate's Court is a person appointed by the Governor-General to perform the duties prescribed by the Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act. 6 This includes the execution of a Warrant for Commitment issued by a magistrate under that Act.

3 Two warrants under the judgment summons procedure were prepared by the Board and filed in the Magistrate's Court on 2^nd November 2009. The parties to the Warrants were described to be the "Director of Social Security" as plaintiff and the "National Supply Ltd. c/o Anthony Hull, Conaree, St Kitts" as defendant. National Supply Ltd. was a company registered under the laws of St. Christopher and Nevis as a separate legal entity, and Mr. Hull was a director of it. Though the company was the defendant named on the Warrants, Mr. Hull's name as part of the address was highlighted. There is a suggestion that at the time of the Warrants the company had been struck off the Register and was "defunct". The imprisonment term stated in the Warrants was to be one month. The Warrants were duly signed by a magistrate, who does not appear to have been concerned that the draft Warrants presented to him/her for signature were for the arrest of a company.

4 At about 2:00 p.m. on Monday 12^th December 2011 a Bailiff of the Magistrate's Court, whose name is not stated, attended at Mr. Hull's home accompanied by one Mr. Delvin Thompson, an employee of the Board. The Bailiff told Mr. Hull that unless he paid a sum of money due and owing under the Warrants he would be imprisoned. The Bailiff thereafter arrested him and he was taken by motor vehicle

to Her Majesty's Prison in Basseterre. He was only released at about 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday 14^th December 2011 by an order of the High Court.

5 Mr. Hull's claim was that the Attorney-General was liable for the acts and omissions of the Bailiff as an employee of the Federal Government and therefore a servant of the Crown. He joined the Attorney-General in the proceedings pursuant to section 13(2) of theCrown Proceedings Act. 7 In Mr. Hull's particulars in support of his claim for aggravated damages against both respondents, he pleaded that he was 64 years old at the time of his arrest, a diabetic, and a well-known businessman in St. Christopher having been the manager of National Supply for approximately fourteen years. He had not been given an opportunity at the time of his arrest to review the Warrants. His arrest took place in the presence of his neighbours. He was, he claimed, indiscreetly taken into Her Majesty's Prison in the view of the general public. While he was being processed at the Prison he was not provided with food or water for approximately five hours.

6 In support of his claim for aggravated damages, Mr. Hull pleaded that he lost his liberty for 47 hours by the actions of the Bailiff on the request of the Board. The Board filed the Warrants in an attempt to make a monetary gain for its benefit. The Board deliberately highlighted his name in the Warrants to defer attention from the real defendant, the company National Supply Ltd.

7 The Board and the Attorney-General duly filed and served an acknowledgment of service, but they filed no defences to the claim served on them. Their defences were due to be filed...