Elrene Jones Edwards v Deanser Smith

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Darville Gomez, J
• Judgment Date: 19 January 2024
• Docket Number: 2020/CLE/GEN 00011
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

Elrene Jones Edwards

Plaintiff

and

Deanser Smith

First Defendant

and

The Public Hospitals Authority

Second Defendant

Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Camille Darville Gomez

2020/CLE/GEN 00011

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Common Law and Equity Division

Practice — striking out — Claimant seeking to strike out certain paragraphs of the Amended Defence on grounds that they are bare denials — unable to file a Reply

Appearances:

Mrs Bridget Ward for the Plaintiff

Miss Lynette King for the Defendants

RULING

Darville Gomez, J

Introduction and Background

1 The Claimant commenced this action against the Defendants for injuries sustained as a result of a traffic accident. The First Defendant was the ambulance driver. The Claimant sought medical attention after the accident and received a diagnosis. She was discharged a few hours later. As a result of suffering extreme pain, she was forced to return to the Second Defendant on the following day where she received a second diagnosis. She has alleged that she has suffered injury because of the negligent driving of the First Defendant and suffered pain and damage as a result of the negligence of the Second Defendant in not having properly diagnosed on her first visit after the accident

2 A Statement of Claim was filed on April 14, 2021 and an Amended Statement of Claim on September 16, 2022. The Defendants filed an Amended Defence on August 8, 2023

The Instant Application

3 By Notice of Application filed on August 29, 2023, the Claimant sought to strike out paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24 of the Amended Defence.

Issues

4 The Claimant has identified three issues for the Court's determination:

HELD: For the reasons hereinafter set out I have acceded to the Claimant's application to strike out the following paragraphs of the Amended Defence viz., 6, 23 and 24.

• (i) Whether the Plaintiff should file a Reply?

• (ii) Whether the relevant paragraphs set out in the Notice of Application constitute bare denials?

• (iii) Whether the relevant paragraphs set out in the Notice of Application should be struck out as being bare denials.

The Law

5 The Claimant relied on Rule 10.5 and 10.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2022.

Issue 1 - Whether the Claimant should file a Reply?

6 There is no requirement to file a Reply as submitted by the Claimant's Counsel. Rule 10.9 of the CPR is clear that a Plaintiff “may” file one.

7 The authorities relied upon included Huqdon Bowe et al v Shanique Rolle, Rudy Taylor et al & Shavaqo McPhee et al 2018/Cle/Gen/01171 and Glendon E....