THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF: The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (CAP. 136 of the Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Revised Edition 2009)
AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Bankruptcy of Harlequin Property (SVG) Limited
BRIAN GLASGOW (as Bankruptcy Trustee of the
Estate of Harlequin Property (SVG) Limited)
Ms. Maya Carrington for the Appellant
Ms. Taylor Laurayne and Ms. Vynnette A. Frederick for the Respondent
2019: February 26
Addendum to Oral Decision of The 22nd February 2019
At the delivery of the oral decision made on the 22nd February 2019 in the above matter it was indicated to the court by Counsel for the Appellant that the submissions in reply from the Appellant due on the 15th February 2019 had instead been filed on the 21 st February 2019.
Having already delivered the oral decision before those submissions were brought to the court’s attention, I informed counsel that I would consider the same once an application had been filed for the time to be extended for the filing of such submissions.
The court has now had sight of the Notice of Application filed on the 22nd February 2019 for an extension of time to have the submissions filed on the 21st February 2019 deemed properly filed. This court granted the said application on the 26th February 2019.
This court has also had sight of the submissions in reply and says the following:
i) It was extremely improper for reference to be made in submissions of evidence that is not before the court on the application. Nowhere in the evidence in support of the Notice of Motion were the items listed at paragraph 5 of the submissions and in particular (a) through to (c).  It was for the Appellant to bring to the court’s attention documents or evidence upon which they sought to rely at the filing of the Notice of Motion.
ii) Indeed this court accepts that perhaps the appellant may have fallen into the category where evidence may have existed but was unavailable  but once again the onus was on the appellant to show this. (This court therefore repeats its findings at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Oral decision of the 22 nd February 2019).
This court therefore states that these reply submissions have made no difference to the reasons contained in the oral decision and the order remains the same.
HIGH COURT JUDGE
By the Court