Tysa Company v Guardian General Insurance Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Rajkumar, J.
• Judgment Date: 26 May 2010
• Neutral Citation: TT 2010 HC 144
• Docket Number: 4349 of 2009
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 26 May 2010

High Court

Rajkumar, J.

4349 of 2009

Tysa Company

and

Guardian General Insurance Company Limited

Appearances:

Mr. Garnet Mungalsingh for the claimant.

Ms. Nadine S Ratiram instructed by Ms. Anjeli Narine for the defendant.

Civil practice and procedure - Statement of Claim — Amendment — Application to amend statement of claim — Whether the application was made after the first Case Management Conference was concluded — Finding that all matters which would have been dealt with by the court at a full hearing of the Case Management Conference were not — Finding that the 1 ^st Case Management had not been concluded — Application granted.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rajkumar, J.

1 [The claimant made an application to amend its statement of claim. The defendant resisted the application, asserting that it could not be made as of right because it was made after the first Case Management Conference was concluded. The issue therefore arises as to whether the application dated the 21st of April 2010 was made after the first Case Management Conference was concluded.]

MUST THE FIRST CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BE CONCLUDED AT ONE HEARING?

2 I have considered what transpired at the Case Management Conference on the 10th of February 2010. It is clear that on that date the only directions that were given were directions that would have facilitated the possibility of mediation which was raised at the court's suggestion. Other directions which would normally have taken place at the first Case Management Conference were specifically deferred, for example, no order was made for the filing of witness statements at that stage. Directions were given for the exchange of documents which was for the purpose clearly of facilitating the identification of all matters that would have been helpful if the suggestion of mediation had been accepted by the parties.

3 It is clear therefore that all matters which could have been dealt with at the Case Management Conference, at the first Case Management Conference, and which would have been dealt with by the court at a full hearing of the Case Management Conference were not, precisely because the option of mediation was one that was in contemplation by the court and suggested to the parties.

4 The statement by the Honourable Justice Rampersad in the case of Premnath Bowlah v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago H. C. 4924/2008 at paragraph 19 which is cited at paragraph 14 of the defendants submissions represents what a proper description of what took place on that occasion would be:

“To my mind the first Case management Conference is an event, a fact, not a name. The ritualistic administrative function of giving a date does not impose the judicial connotations of case management until there has been an actual exposition of the matters intended to be dealt with as referred to at Part 25. If those matters are not dealt with on the P court appointed date I see it necessary to consider at what point a judge has dealt with the matters. It is important to note that Part 25.1 is not a check list but a guide to the matters which a court ought to consider”.

5 The first hearing did not manifest into the first Case Management Conference to my mind.

6 In this case the question of Alternative Dispute Resolution, in particular mediation was raised by the court. In this regard Mr. Mungalsingh, attorney for the claimant referred to Part 27.8 and in...