Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » Court Of Appeal Judgments » John Cecil Rose V Anne Marie Rose

    John Cecil Rose V Anne Marie Rose

    1
    SAINT LUCIA

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

    CIVIL APPEAL NO.19 OF 2003

    BETWEEN:

    JOHN CECIL ROSE
    Appellant
    and

    ANNE MARIE URALIS ROSE
    Respondent

    Before:
    The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice

    Appearances:
    Mr. Rudolph Francis for the Appellant
    Mr. Anthony McNamara, Q.C. for the Respondent


    2003: July 29;

    September 22

    JUDGMENT

    [1] BYRON, C.J.: On 31st October 2002, the learned trial Judge awarded one-half share of
    the matrimonial property totaling $165,520.00 to Mrs. Rose. On 17th

    March 2003, Mr.
    Rose applied for leave for an extension of time to appeal against that Order. Part 62.5(c)
    of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 gave him 42 days to appeal. More than three months
    had elapsed since the 42 days given by Pat 62.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 had
    expired. Part 62.16(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 empowers a single Judge to
    hear the application.
    The Law

    [2] Granting the extension of time is a discretionary power of the Court, which will be
    exercised in favour of the applicant for good and substantial reasons. The matters which 2
    the Court will consider in the exercise of its discretion are: (1) the length of the delay; (2)
    the reasons for the delay; (3) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the extension is
    granted; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the Respondent if the Application is granted.1

    The Length of the Delay

    [3] In this case the delay was more than three months. In my view such a delay would be
    inordinate if there was no acceptable reason for it. There have been several cases
    decided on this point.2

    The Reason for the Delay

    [4] The reason that Mr. Rose gave for the delay was that he had difficulty in communicating
    with his attorney. Details of Mr. Rose’s failed efforts to communicate with his attorney
    were not adduced in evidence, and the attorneys involved in the Application for leave for
    an extension of time did not adduce any evidence on that issue. Mr. Rose subsequently
    retained a new attorney but only after he was already out of time to file his appeal. The
    first issue that it is necessary to emphasize is that in matters of this nature, the points
    being made must be proved by evidence.3 Even if one could say that the attorney had
    been less than diligent in response to Mr. Rose’s enquiries about appealing, we have
    expressed the view on many occasions that the lack of diligence of an attorney is not a
    good reason for delay4
    1
    Harold Simon v Carol Henry and Tracey Joseph, Court of Appeal, Antigua and Barbuda, Civil Suit
    No. 1 of 1995; Monica Patsy Greuner v Carl Eugene Greuner, Court of Appeal, Grenada, Motion No.
    13 of 1999
    , whether it is explained in terms of the volume of work the attorney
    is maintaining, or as in this case the difficulties experienced in communications. Mr.
    Rose’s new Counsel complained that if this were the U.S.A. or Canada or the UK, his
    client would have been able to initiate proceedings for redress against the former attorney.
    The suggestion that similar relief was not available in St. Lucia is ill-informed, and it may
    be time that the legal profession was made accountable in this jurisdiction. In my
    judgment therefore there was no acceptable reason for the inordinate delay.
    2
    Harold Simon v Carol Henry and Tracey Joseph, Monica Patsy Greuner v Carl Eugene Greuner 3
    Aggraram Maharaj v Dhanraj Jagroo and Another (1985) 37 WIR 398, Evelyn v Williams (1962) 4
    WIR 265 4
    Casimir v Shillingford (1967) 10 WIR 269, Evelyn v Williams 3

    Chance of Success

    [5] The intended Appellant did not adduce any evidence to show the merits of the appeal, nor
    did he file any skeleton arguments or the grounds on which the appeal would be argued.
    Counsel was allowed to describe the basis of the appeal from the Bar. It was disclosed in
    this manner that the couple were of mature age when they married. They had been living
    abroad. Mr. Rose had a house in St. Lucia which was on rent and Mrs. Rose had a house
    in England which she sold. There was a dispute at the trial as to the value of the Mrs.
    Rose’s house and whether she invested the proceeds of sale into renovating the property.
    The learned trial Judge was influenced by the evidence that Mrs. Rose took her capital
    savings and invested it in Mr. Rose’s property. The learned trial Judge was also
    influenced by the evidence that Mrs. Rose surrendered her pensionable rights, as a nurse
    in the UK to return to St. Lucia, and that when the marriage broke down, and she was
    evicted from the home, she had to return to work to maintain herself. The parties were the
    only witnesses and the documentary evidence was sparse. The learned trial Judge
    believed Mrs. Rose and found that it was her investment that pushed the value of the
    property to over $300,000.00. Counsel represented that the basis of the appeal would be
    seeking to reverse that finding of fact. In all of the circumstances, Mrs. Rose lost a home,
    and if justice was to be done, it was only fair that she be given back a portion of what she
    had invested in the home. The Court has often applied the principle that a Court of Appeal
    would be reluctant to overturn a finding of fact that was based on the credibility of the
    witnesses before the Court5

    . I therefore hold the view that this is not a case where there is
    any apparent miscarriage of justice which should influence the exercise of my discretion in
    favour of extending the time for appealing.
    Degree of Prejudice

    [6] The Court must ask itself what is the extent to which the Respondent will be prejudiced if
    leave is granted6
    5
    Leonard Yates Construction Co. Limited v Edward Silver, Court of Appeal, British Virgin Islands,
    Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2001
    . In this case the degree of prejudice is obviously substantial. Divorce
    6
    Norwich and Peter Borough B.S. v Steed [1991] 2 All ER 880 (per Lord Donaldson MR p. 885). See
    also Albinus Powlette v Gordon Nash, Court of Appeal, Grenada, Motion No. 1 of 1998 4
    proceedings were filed in 1994, some eleven years ago. All this time Mrs. Rose has been
    out of a home and has suffered an uncertainty about her entitlement to share in the
    matrimonial home which is more likely than not, to have inhibited the arrangements she
    could have made for her own living arrangements over all these years. The adage “justice
    delayed is justice denied” is real. Making an Order which would require a further delay in
    the resolution of this dispute must prolong a hardship unnecessarily and for no good
    reason.

    Conclusion

    [7] In my view the application should be dismissed because Mr. Rose was in breach of the
    requirement to file his appeal within 42 days. His delay of more than three months after
    the time limited for filing was inordinate. The reason he advanced for the delay was not
    acceptable. He did not show that there was any substantial miscarriage of justice which
    was likely to be corrected on appeal. To authorize further delay in the resolution of this
    dispute would amount to a denial of justice to Mrs. Rose.

    [8] I would therefore dismiss this application.

    Sir Dennis Byron
    Chief Justice

    https://www.eccourts.org/john-cecil-rose-v-anne-marie-rose/
     Prev
    Laurie Taylor v David Milliken-Smith
    Next 
    Timothy Stonich v Tamara Stonich
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more