Clayton Armbrister v Karen Johnson-Knowles

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judgment Date: 29 March 2021
• Date: 29 March 2021
• Docket Number: Action No.2010/CLE/gen/00153
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Common Law and Equity Division

Action No.2010/CLE/gen/00153

Between

Clayton Armbrister

and

Sherelle Armbrister

Plaintiffs

and

Karen Johnson-Knowles

Defendant

RULING

1 This is an application by the Plaintiffs by Summons filed 16 September 2019 “Application”). The Summons prays for an order that the Plaintiffs be granted an extension of time to file a bill of costs, but what they are really seeking is an extension of time for the taxation of their costs. These would be the costs of the Action consequent upon the Default Judgment entered in 2011 that is further mentioned below.

2 The application is made under Order 59 rule 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and is supported by the Affidavit sworn jointly by the Plaintiffs and filed on 14 June 2019.

3 I heard the Application on the papers, pursuant to the Court's Covid-19 Protocols. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mrs. Gia Moxey-Lockhart of Moxey Law Chambers, laid over Skeleton Arguments on 4 March 2021, setting out the grounds, legal arguments and authorities relied upon in support of the Application.

4 Relevant circumstances that the Court must consider for granting an extension of time within which to begin taxation are set out in the Court of Appeal case Glen Alexander Colebrooke and Bahamas Jehovah's Witnesses v The National Insurance Board, SCCIVApp No.127 of 2008, at paragraph 15. Those circumstances include: (i) the duration of the delay, (ii) the extent to which it is explained or excusable; (iii) the degree of prejudice suffered by any other party, and (iv) any additional interest.

Duration and Explanation for Delay

5 When this lawsuit was started the Plaintiffs represented themselves. The Writ of Summons was filed on 9 February 2010. After the Writ was served an Appearance was entered by the Defendant, followed by the filing of the Statement of Claim which was served on 4 March 2011. No Defence was ever served. Accordingly, on 25 May 2011 a Judgment in Default of Defence was filed for $23,200 in damages plus costs to be taxed if not agreed.

6 In February 2014 the Plaintiffs appointed counsel to act on their behalf, namely Bethel, Moss & Co. Their then counsel proceeded to have the Defendant personally served with the Judgment in Default of Defence on or about 8 May 2015. This was presumably to elicit a reaction from the Defendant since none had been forthcoming from her attorneys of record who had entered the Appearance on her behalf.

7 ...