St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd and Lawrence v Attorney General (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 09 September 1982
• Neutral Citation: KN 1982 HC 4
• Docket Number: 16 of 1982
• Date: 09 September 1982

High Court

Bishop, J.

16 of 1982

St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National BAnk Ltd. and Lawrence

and

Attorney General (No. 2)

Appearances:

Mr. F. Kelsick appeared under protest for Miss Constance Mitcham and Richard Caines

Mr. N. Butler appears conditionally for respondents Buchanan, Joseph, Nisbett, Bailey and Phipps

Practice and procedure - Order for contempt — Application to commit persons to prison for contempt in aiding and abetting the Minister of Finance in disobeying a court order — No proof that the terms of the injunction had been broken — Application dismissed.

Bishop, J.

1 This second application was filed on behalf of Edmund W. Lawrence, “for orders to commit certain persons to prison for contempt in aiding and abetting the Minister of Finance, by himself his servants or agents or otherwise in disobeying an Order dated the 7th day of April, 1982 …”

2 No names of persons against whom the orders were being sought, were stated in the Heading, but in the body of the Notice of Motion, it was shown, inter alia, that orders were sought in respect of the following persons whose addresses were given: Constance Mitcham, Richard Caines, Ivan Buchanan, Austin Joseph, Warren Nisbett, Analdo Bailey and Romig Phipps.

3 Mr. Kelsick submitted that the omission to state the names of the persons in the Heading was fatal because it failed to reveal that such persons were parties to the matter; and he expressed the view that had the Heading read “certain persons named herein in the body of the Motion”, then it may possibly have avoided the fatality. Counsel stressed the fact that there were persons mentioned in the body of the Notice of Motion, who had not been hitherto involved in the action No. 16 of 1982 and he contended that they could only be seen to be parties in the instant motion, if their names were set down in its Heading.

4 In my decision on the earlier application, I referred to a rubric ‘Notice of Motion’ as set out in the White Book of 1973 and I wish here to direct attention to that decision. As far as the note which I quoted was concerned, learned counsel Mr. Kelsick submitted that the word “should” was to be construed as mandatory and that this being an aspect of the practice and procedure in committal proceedings, it ought to be treated as if it were a point raised in criminal proceedings. In the circumstances of the instant motion, especially the fact that there were names and addresses given, I am unable to rest my decision upon...