Bootle et Al v Grand Bahama Hotel Company

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
• Judge: Sawyer, P,Sawyer, P.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2006
• Neutral Citation: BS 2006 CA 136
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2006
• Date: 14 November 2006

Court of Appeal

Sawyer, P.; Ganpatsingh, J.A.; Osadebay, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2006

Bootle et al

and

Grand Bahama Hotel Company

Appearances:

Godfrey Pinder, Esq., counsel for appellants/respondents.

Sir Orville A Turnquest, Q.C., with Bradley W. Callender, Esq., counsel for respondent/applicant.

Civil practice and procedure - Striking out — non-compliance with order of Registrar — No application for extension of time — Appeal struck out.

Sawyer, P

1 This is an application for the striking out of an appeal for noncompliance with the order of the Registrar of this court, given in the presence of counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondent.

2 The time for compliance with the order has long since passed. There is no application before this court for an extension of time. There was an application by summons before the Registrar for a “variation” of the Registrar's order, so as to get around the requirements of Rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2005. Rule 9 says:

“The Court may on such terms as it thinks just, by order

• (a) extend the period prescribed by these Rules for the doing of anything to which these Rules apply.”

  Pausing there, there was no application in this case to extend the time prescribed by the Rules.

• “(b) extend the period specified in any judgment, order or direction of the court, or the court below, for the doing of anything to which the judgment, order or direction relates.” We do not think that that applies.

• (c) “a departure from these Rules in any other way where this is required in the interests of justice.

  The power of the court, under the provisions of paragraph (1), to extend any period so prescribed or specified, is exercisable notwithstanding the expiration of the period so prescribed or specified.”

3 There is no application - we repeat - before this court for an extension of time. There is no application supported by any affidavit explaining the reasons for the noncompliance. We feel, therefore, we have no choice but to strike out the appeal for noncompliance with the Rules, and the costs of striking out are to be the applicant's, the respondent in the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.

Sawyer, P.