Gulf View Medical Centre Ltd v Goetz

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: FRANK SEEPERSAD
• Judgment Date: 10 October 2017
• Neutral Citation: TT 2017 HC 267
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. CV 2017-01032
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 10 October 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad

CLAIM NO. CV 2017-01032

Between

Gulf View Medical Centre Limited

Claimant

and

Dr. Lester Goetz

Defendant

Appearances

1. Ms Mary O'Rourk QC, Mr Pariagsingh and Mr Anand Beharrylal for the Claimant

2. Mr. Hamelsmith SC, Mr Pantin Inst By Ms Thompson for the Defendants

Cases Mentioned:

Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 – Spire Healthcare Ltd v. Brooke [2016] EWHC 2828 (QB).

Legislation:

Section 26 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 4:01 of Trinidad and Tobago – Section 4 of the Limitation of Certain Actions Act, Chapter 7:05 of Trinidad and Tobago – Part 18.3 and 18.4 of the Civil Proceedings Rules, 1998 (as amended) of Trinidad and Tobago.

Civil practice and procedure - Striking out — Whether defendants application should be struck out — Application devoid of merit as issue pursued in instant claim was actively considered during the course of the substantive matter — Claim struck out — Costs awarded to defendant.

Oral decision reduced into writing

DECISION

1 Before the Court for its determination was the Defendant's Notice of Application filed on 4 ^th July, 2017 to strike out the Claimant's Claim Form and Statement of Case by virtue of which the Claimant sought declaratory relief and an order of indemnity from the Defendant with respect to the whole (or for such part as the Court may direct) of the judgment sum awarded in CV 2009-2051/HCA 542 of 2005 (the substantive matter).

2 The Court felt that it was necessary to undertake a comprehensive view of the procedural history that unfolded in the substantive matter which arose as a result of the death of Russell Tesheira. In that matter the instant Defendant was named as a Defendant but a settlement was effected with the Claimant and he exited the matter. The instant Claimant pursued an application for, inter alia, an order that it be granted leave to institute an Ancillary Claim as against the instant Defendant and the grounds upon which the application was premised were expressed as follows:

• “(5) The alleged damage to the Claimant arises out of a single incident in which the Defendants, if held liable, would have caused the same damage. Though different tortfeasors, the alleged damage caused was the same. Settlement of the claim against one tortfeasor operated as a bar to the claim against the other tortfeasors… In addition, there will be the issue of indemnity and/or contribution which have to be addressed by way of an ancillary claim against the Second Named Defendant [this Defendant) who was the principal tortfeasor.

• (8) The action now stands dismissed as against the Second Defendant [this Defendant] on the basis of the settlement. The Second Defendant will not face trial of liability and this Honourable Court would be unable to apportion liability and even continue the matter with the Claimant having settled against the main tortfeasor. The...