Jarrett _Marcia_ v South East Regional Health Authority et al.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the court must defer to the judge’s exercise of his discretion and must notinterfere with it merely because it would have exercised the discretiondifferently:“The function of the appellate court is initially oneof review only. It may set aside the judge’sexercise of his discretion on the ground that it isbased upon a misunderstanding of the law or ofthe evidence before him or upon an inferencethat particular facts existed or did not exist,which, although it was one that mightlegitimately have been drawn upon theevidence that was before the judge, can bedemonstrated to be wrong by further evidencethat has become available by the time of theappeal; or upon the ground that there has beena change of circumstances after the judgemade his order that would have justified hisacceding to an application to vary it. Sincereasons given by judges for granting or refusing[interim] injunctions may sometimes be sketchy,there may also be occasional cases where eventhough no erroneous assumption of law of factcan be identified the judge’s decision to grant orrefuse the injunction is so aberrant that it must beset aside upon the ground that no reasonablejudge regardful of his duty to act judicially couldhave reached it. It is only if and after theappellate court has reached the conclusion thatthe judge’s exercise of his discretion must be setaside for one or other of the reasons, that itbecomes entitled to exercise an originaldiscretion of its own.”[26] However, in the instant case I am clearly of the view that Beckford Jfell into error when she declined to entertain the appellant’s applicationunder rule 28.14(2), and thereby rendered the respondents’ application
for relief from sanctions otiose, as the judge described it. It seems to methat in accepting the respondents’ argument that the order for specificdisclosure made by Cole-Smith J “does not speak to specific disclosure orrecords in the possession of [Dr Wan] as a private practitioner from theperiod of December 1998 to March 1999”, Beckford J clearlymisunderstand the import of the order in the light of the rules, and that herorder must therefore be set aside.[27] Rule 28.14(4) provides that upon an application for a strike-out orderfor failure to comply with an order for disclosure the court may make an‘unless’ order; that is, an order that unless the defaulting party complieswith the order for disclosure by a specific date, that party’s statement ofcase or some part of it may be struck out.On this basis, it thereforeappears to me that the appropriate order to be made in thesecircumstances (and which I now make) is as follows:(a) The appeal is allowed and the order of Beckford J made on 4December 2009 is set aside.(b)Unless the second named respondent (Dr Robert Wan)complies with the order for specific disclosure made by Cole-Smith J on 26 April 2007 by 16 April 2010, the Defence dated14 November and filed on 15 December 2006 is struck out.
Page 7 and 8: absence of any affidavit from Dr Wa
Page 9 and 10: (c) that party has or has had a rig
Page 11 and 12: (b)direct that a hearing be fixed a
Page 13: [23] This long established principl

Jarrett _Marcia_ v South East Regional Health Authority et al.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?