Jamaica International Insurance Co Ltd v the Admin General for ...

proceedings, whether the limitation period under the provisions of the LRMPA withregard to the action had expired. She did say, however, that based on the latterly citedcases she was of the opinion that at the time the notice of application was filed toextend the validity of the claim form, the limitation period under the LRMPA would nothave expired. She was of the view, however, that as the time had clearly expired withregard to filing an action under the FAA (section 4(2)), that was of significance inexercising her discretion as to whether to enlarge time to grant an extension under thatAct, and that it was also of significance in relation to whether to grant an extension oftime to serve the claim form having regard to factors such as the degree of prejudice.[22] She disagreed with counsel for the applicant that in order for the applicant torely on its obvious limitation defence she should decline to extend the validity of theclaim form and the respondent would then be forced to file a second claim in which theapplicant could raise its limitation defence successfully. The master indicated that thatsubmission was based on cases which had interpreted the statutes in England and hadno relevance in this jurisdiction. There were no provisions generally here, she stated,for the court to exercise a discretion to extend the validity of the claim if the limitationperiod had passed. There was also no established solicitor’s indemnity fund. Theabsence of these would influence her decision. She stated:“...justice required different lenses – we have to take intoaccount that there is no possibility of a second action andinadequate or no compensation. A denial of an application toextend the life of the claim form at this stage, is likely toseverely prejudice the Claimant, with little prejudice to aDefendant who has not yet been served and cannot befound to be served – a Defendant who has been convicted