O'Neill v Ag

JurisdictionBahamas
CourtCourt of Appeal (Bahamas)
JudgeOsadebay, J.A.
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No. 46 of 2006
Date05 October 2006

Court of Appeal

Ganpatsingh, J.A.; Osadebay, J.A.; Longley, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2006

O'Neill
and
Ag
Appearances:

Civil practice and procedure - Appeal — Issues — Matter before the lower court was not fully heard and determined — Entire case should have been presented to the trial judge before launching an appeal — Abuse of process — Unnecessarily prolonged litigation — Appeal struck out — Matter ordered to be completed before the Supreme Court.

1

Brian Simms, Esq., with Matthew Paton, Esq., counsel for appellant.

2

Dawn Lewis, Attorney at Law, with Keith Cargill, Esq., counsel for respondent.

Osadebay, J.A.
3

This appeal arises out of the decision of Thompson, J., made in the Supreme Court on the 23rd June, 2006.

4

In that decision, the learned judge ruled that she had jurisdiction to grant an application by the Attorney General of The Bahamas for an order giving effect to letters of request which had been issued on the 10th May, 2005, by the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida of the United States of America.

5

The letters sought to have National Bank of Canada International Limited provide to the Attorney General authenticated and complete copies of certain documents in relation to Martin O'Neill, also known as Martin E. O'Neill in aid of civil proceedings in the United States of America.

6

The application by the Attorney General was made ex parte under the provisions of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act, 2000, Chapter 66, Laws of The Bahamas. The order granting the application was made on the 26th October, 2005.

7

By a summons dated 23rd November, 2005, the appellant, Martin O'Neill, applied to have the order of Thompson J., discharged on a number of grounds including - that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant the order.

8

At the hearing of the appellant's application, counsel for and on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Martin O'Neill applied to the court to have the issue of jurisdiction heard and determined first before dealing with the other grounds in the application. The Court acceded to that request and that was done.

9

On the 23rd June, 2006, Thompson, J., ruled that the court had jurisdiction to grant the order.

10

That decision having been given by the learned judge, the appellant, without proceeding with the other grounds in his summons application proceeded to launch an appeal against that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT