Roberson et Al v Wallraf et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 March 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: 492 of 1999
• Date: 22 March 2000

High Court

Shanks, J.

492 of 1999

Roberson et al

and

Wallraf et al

Appearances:

Mr. Wilfred Elrington, S.C. for the claimants.

Mr. Denys Barrow, S.C. for the respondents.

Jurisdiction - Supreme Court — Court had given respondents leave to appeal in the arbitration matter — Whether the court had jurisdiction to impose conditions on its grant of leave to appeal in the interlocutory proceedings — Finding that leave would be granted to the respondents to appeal against the imposition of conditions on the previous grant of leave to appeal — No ruling on the merits of the appeal.

Shanks, J.

1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of mine where I gave leave to appeal to Mr. Barrow in this arbitration matter subject to certain conditions. The imposition of these conditions has, it seems, caused a certain amount of trouble and it seems that Mr. Barrow wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeal to say I have no jurisdiction to impose the conditions and that the conditions imposed were too onerous. It seems to me that the proper way to bring this before the Court of Appeal is to ask them to review my decision on the application for leave to appeal in the same way as if I had refused leave altogether, the Court of Appeal has indicated otherwise and that Mr. Barrow must therefore appeal against the decision.

2 I am, therefore, asked to grant leave for that appeal. The authorities indicating that there is jurisdiction to impose conditions have been shown to me but one of them talks about a certain condition like the one I imposed being unusual, and the other say that this is exceptional, if there is jurisdiction at all. It seems to me that the whole matter should indeed be reviewed by the Court of Appeal to see what kind of conditions can be imposed on a leave application and that if I don't grant leave to appeal this time, the matter will get lost in a quite unnecessary procedural wrangle.

3 In order to cut through such a wrangle I therefore grant Mr. Barrow leave to appeal against the imposition of conditions on my last grant of leave to appeal. In doing so, I wish to emphasize that I am expressing no view whatsoever as to the merits of his appeal. I hope these reasons are sufficient for the Court of Appeal to now review this matter provided, of course, that they have time to do so.