Oscar Alonzo Cocom v Amin Zamir Quiroz

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Hondora, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 May 2024
• Docket Number: CLAIM No. 109 of 2022
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)

BETWEEN:

Oscar Alonzo Cocom

Claimant

and

Amin Zamir Quiroz (Executor of the Estate of Ramon Martinez)

Defendant

CLAIM No. 109 of 2022

IN THE SENIOR COURTS OF BELIZE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE

Civil Procedure — Application for specific disclosure — Test to be applied for specific disclosure — Documents whose disclosure is sought should be identified with sufficient precision — Relevancy and necessity tests — Claim for return of money deposited into a bank account

Appearances:

Mrs Andrea Mckoy – counsel for the claimant

Mr Rene Montero – counsel for the defendant

RULING

IN RESPECT OF A JUDGMENT SUMMONS

1 Hondora, J. this is an interlocutory ruling on an application for specific disclosure. At the centre of the dispute is the sum of BZ$100,000 which the claimant, Mr Oscar Cocom (Mr Cocom) deposited into Mr Ramon Martinez's (Mr Martinez) Atlantic Bank account on 25 June 2020. Mr Martinez who was the claimant's stepfather died in December 2020, which explains Mr Cocom's legal suit against Mr Amin Alonzo Quiroz, the executor of Mr Martinez's estate.

2 Mr Cocom's case is that in June 2020, he entered into an oral loan agreement with his now deceased stepfather (Mr Martinez) for the sum of BZ$100,000. He alleges that pursuant to that loan agreement he deposited on 25 June 2020 the sum of BZ$100,000 into his stepfather's bank account with Atlantic Bank. Mr Cocom also alleges that at the time of his death in December 2020, Mr Martinez had not repaid the loan amount hence the current legal proceedings against his stepfather's estate.

3 On the other hand, Mr Quiroz disputes that Mr Martinez's estate owes the Mr Cocom any money. He contends that the payment, which Mr Cocom made into Mr Martinez's bank account on 25 June 2020 was in fact money that Mr Cocom owed Mr Martinez. He alleges that pursuant to an oral contract in 2019, Martinez lent and advanced the sum of BZ$100,000 to Mr Cocom and the deposit made by Mr Cocom on 25 June 2020 constituted repayment of the 2019 loan amount.

4 Despite the differing accounts, the parties agree that on 25 June 2020 Mr Cocom deposited BZ$100,000 into Mr Martinez's bank account. What is in dispute is whether that deposit was a loan by Mr Cocom to Mr Martinez or whether it constituted repayment by Mr Cocom of money lent and advanced to him by Mr Martinez in 2019.

5 This case provides a seminal lesson on the importance of reducing contracts to writing, including contracts between relatives. That said, the factual disputes arising in this matter will be resolved at trial after considering all the evidence presented by the parties.

Application for specific disclosure

6 On 21 March 2024, Mr Cocom filed an application for specific disclosure. His application came after the 15 February 2024 directions hearing during which I issued orders on (a) the filing of a pre-trial memorandum; (b) hearing of objections to witness statements; (c) filing of a trial bundle; (d) the date of the Pre-trial review hearing; and (e) the date for hearing the matter on the merits.

7 In his application, which was supported by an affidavit, Mr Cocom sought the following orders:

“That the Defendant forthwith discloses to the Claimant the remittance information, including the source of funds declaration or documentation provided in support of the deposit by the Claimant of the sum of $100,000 to the bank account of the Deceased, Ramon Martinez, on or around the 25 ^th June, 2020, and the Bank Statements with respect to Atlantic Bank [ account number given] for the year 2020.

8 I heard Mr Cocom's application for specific disclosure on 25 April 2024 after which I reserved judgment. These are my reasons for my ruling dismissing his application.

9 In arriving at my decision, I considered the parties' pleadings, including the justifications provided for and against the application for specific disclosure. I will not restate all the submissions made in the skeleton arguments nor in oral submissions by counsel. However, I thank Mrs Mckoy and Mr Montero for their insightful submissions, which I have considered in arriving at my decision.

Principles on specific disclosure

10 The principles on specific disclosure are well settled 1 and are set out in Part 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). In making an order for specific disclosure:

• (a) the court must satisfy itself that the documents sought by one party are or have been in the other party's control ( CPR 28.2(1)) and a document will be deemed to be in the relevant party's control if the document (i) is or was in their physical possession; (ii) the relevant party has or had a right to possession of the document; or (iii) the relevant party has or has had a right to inspect or take copies of the document ( CPR 28.2(2);

• (b) the court must satisfy itself that the documents are directly relevant to the issues pleaded in the proceedings ( CPR 28.5(5) and documents will be deemed to be directly relevant if (a) the party with control of the document intends to rely on it; (b) the document tends to adversely affect the case of the party with possession; or (c) the document tends to support the case of the party seeking disclosure ( CPR 28.1(4); and

• (c) the court must satisfy itself that specific disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs and in making this determination, the court must have regard to (i) the likely benefits of specific disclosure; (ii) the likely costs of specific disclosure; and (iii) the financial resources available to the party against whom the order is to be made and whether that party's financial resources are sufficient to enable that party to comply with any order made ( CPR 28.6(1) & (2).

11 Relatedly, the party seeking specific disclosure bears the onus of demonstrating that their application satisfies the requirements set out in Part 28 of the CPR.

12 I will now turn to, and use these principles in considering, Mr Cocom's application.

Request for remittance Information

13 Mr Cocom seeks the disclosure of “remittance information”. In para. 7 of his application, Mr Cocom stated:

“When I deposited the funds to (sic) to the deceased's account, I was also required to complete a source of funds declaration and state the purpose of the deposit as part of the remittance information required for the payment to be processed. The remittance information, including the source of funds declaration is relevant to this Claim, and would assist the Honourable Court in determining the nature

and purpose of the deposit I made to the Deceased's account, which is one of the issues in dispute between the parties.”

14 In para. 9 of his application, Mr Cocom also stated:

“Disclosure of the remittance information, including source of funds declaration, and the Deceased's Atlantic Bank Statement for the year 2020 are necessary to dispose fairly of the Claimant's case against the Defendant and are likely to assist the parties by saving costs in this process. The remittance information was prepared and or submitted to the Bank at a time when the Deceased was yet alive, and it is contemporaneous with, and directly relevant to the parties' agreement in relation to the funds.”

15 It is my considered view that Mr Cocom has failed to discharge his onus of demonstrating that he is entitled to an order for specific disclosure for what he called “remittance information”.

16 I am not persuaded that Mr Cocom has provided sufficient information on the “remittance information” that he seeks. It is unclear if the “remittance information” is contained in a document and if so, which or what type of document.

17 The court may only make an order of specific disclosure with respect to documents. The documents can, of course, be electronic or hard copy. If a party to litigation is in possession of “information”, the party seeking that “information” can cross examine the relevant party during the hearing and not through an application for specific disclosure.

18 In addition, a party seeking specific disclosure must provide sufficient detail to enable the court to identify with precision the document sought and to determine whether such document is indeed in the possession of the relevant party. Precision in pleading and in identifying the relevant document will also enable the court to determine whether such document is relevant to the issues pleaded, and whether it is necessary that a specific disclosure order be made in relation to the same.

19 Relatedly, a party against whom a specific disclosure is intended to be made must be made sufficiently aware of the precise document with respect to which they are required to effect disclosure. This is important because without such information, it would be difficult if not costly to comply with the specific disclosure order made by the court. Failure to comply at all or in a timely manner with a specific disclosure order may result in sanctions. In the circumstances, it would be unfair on a party to be required to effect disclosure of a document whose nature is uncertain and with respect to which they may not in reality have in their possession.

20 In my view, Mr Cocom has failed to make out a viable case for a specific disclosure order for what he called...