Turton et Al v Turton et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Brown, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 July 1988
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: Action 364 of 1986
• Date: 28 July 1988

Supreme Court

Brown, J.

Action 364 of 1986

Turton et al

and

Turton et al

NO APPEARANCES

Practice and Procedure - Striking out — Application to strike out statement of claim — Whether statement discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous and vexations.

Brown, J.

1 By an application made by the first-named Defendant he seeks an Order that:–

1

The statement of claim herein be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action; and/or 2. The same be struck out as scandalous or vexatious: (a) by claiming fraudulent breaches of trust when the first-named defendant is not nor has ever been in law or in equity a trustee of the Plaintiffs or any of them; and/or (b) by the introduction in clauses 16, 17 and 19 of offensive, irrelevant and unnecessary matter prejudicial to the first-named Defendant for the reasons that: (a) the statement of claim is unsigned; (b) the statement of claim bears no endorsement of the date of delivery nor of an address of the plaintiffs or any of them; (c) Clauses 1, 7 and 9 are full reproduction of documents; (d) Clause 23 consists only of a reproduction of portions of statute law; (e) Clauses 3, 4, 59 61 10, 11l 12, 15t 169 179 18 and 19 are irrelevant and unnecessary and/or statements of evidence.

2 The Writ of Summons herein was filed in the General Registry on the 6th December 1986. On the original Writ of Summons was shown that it was issued by Messrs Pitts & Elrington and the address for service is given as 19 King Street Street, the chambers of the solicitors for the plaintiffs. On the 31st March 1987 upon an application made before Ponnambalam J. His Lordship allowed an amendment to the Writ of Summons to show on its face the specific addresses of the four plaintiffs. The Amendment Order in respect of the Writ of Summons was filed on the 13th April 1987. On the 8th April 1988 this court ordered that the Statement of Claim be served attached to the Writ of Summons.

3 The application for the striking out of the Statement of Claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action as not sustainable. The lengthy legal arguments as to the relationship existing between the Parties to this application evidently shoes that the claim “on the face of it is not obviously unsustainable. There are issue, raised relating to the provisions in the will of the testator an Order of Moe then Chief Justice and of two agreements relating to the residuary estate of he testator. There is shown a bona fide attempt to have the issues determined there being on the face of it a casual connection or nexus. The plaintiff allege breach of duty and are giving particulars of the precise relation from which the duty as alleged to arise. The court must therefore decide the question of law on the state of fact i.e. the Will; the Hon. C.J.'s Order in 1969 and the 1966 and 1971 agreement; and not deciding at thin time an abstract question of law as to the variation of a Will after a Testator has died. The fact is that it is not the practice of this court to have a preliminary hearing in applying this rule as to the striking out of pleadings.

4 On the second ground that the Statement of Claim is scandalous. Counsel for applicant has submitted that it is scandalous to make a claim of...