Hughes v Hughes

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Satrohan Singh J.A.
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1998
• Neutral Citation: AI 1998 CA 1
• Docket Number: No. 8 of 1996
• Date: 02 June 1998
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

Court of Appeal

Byron, C.J. (Ag.) Singh, J.A.Matthew, J.A. (Ag.)

No. 8 of 1996

Hughes

and

Hughes

Appearances:

Mr Courtney Abel, Mr Patrick Patterson with him for the appellant

Miss Paulette Harrigan for the respondent

Practice and Procedure - Writ — Amendment — Whether the court should permit an amendment to a writ of summons, when such application is made after the expiry of the relevant limitation period and which, if granted, would effectively deprive a defendant of the right to such a defence in a subsequent action that may be brought by the proposed added party should the application be refused — Court would not allow such an amendment if it would deprive the defendant of a defence under the statute of limitations — Section 19 of limitation Ordinance applied.

Satrohan Singh J.A.

1 On July 31, 1995, the respondent, as personal representative of the Estate of Mary Richardson deceased, brought suit against the appellant for an order of possession with respect to lands described as Registration Section Road Block 08412B Parcel 23 of Anguilla. She also prayed for an injunctive order referable to the said property and for damages for trespass. The appellant in his defence to this claim denied the trespass and averred that he entered the land in 1983 with the permission of his father. He admitted that when he so entered, he understood that the land was undivided family property. He pleaded that he built on the land without objections from the respondent and claimed that this suit brought the respondent was barred as a result of the respondent'sacquiescence and laches.

2 Before the suit came on for hearing in December, 1996, the respondent discovered that as a result of an honest genuine mistake on her part caused by the “bungling at the Lands and Surveys Department” (as found by the judge), that at the time when the suit was filed, the disputed land was already registered in the name of its beneficial owner Orlando Richardson. Saunders J found this happened “through no fault of the (respondent) and despite Orlando Richardson'seffort precisely to prevent the same.”

3 The effect of this discovery left the respondent with no locus standi to maintain the claims for possession and the injunction. Standing remained only with respect to the trespass. She therefore, in order to maintain the claims for the injunction and for possession, applied to the judge for leave to joinOrlando Richardson as an added plaintiff. This application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that to do so, would be to deprive him of a defence under the Limitation Acts that he would have been entitled to should Orlando Richardson decide to bring a fresh suit for possession of the...