Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 18 March 2026 -- On 17 March 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) delivered reasons for its decision in Harry Panday v Malcolm Panday and Deosaran David, a matter originating from Guyana. On 17 December 2025, the Court had granted special leave to appeal, that is, permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter to the High Court of Guyana to be heard before a different Judge. In its reasons, the Court outlined the procedural framework on how courts should approach striking out applications and/or deficient statements of claims/pleadings, that is, those that may lack a reasonable cause of action or sufficient particulars/facts.
The case involves a partnership dispute between two brothers, Harry Panday (the Applicant) and Malcolm Panday (the First Respondent). The dispute in this matter centres on a judgment sum of USD 733,451 plus interest which the Applicant claims belongs to the partnership. The Applicant's Statement of Claim was first struck out by the High Court. Both the full Court and the Court of Appeal then upheld the striking out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim due to insufficient particulars.
In its reasons, the Court articulated the appropriate approach for striking out a claim using a framework anchored in the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court held that cases should, wherever possible, be determined on their substantive merits rather than being dismissed for curable procedural deficiencies. Under this approach, where a court identifies a potentially deficient statement of claim, it must first determine whether the pleading discloses a reasonable ground or cause of action for bringing a claim , and whether any deficiency in particulars is curable. If the claim discloses a cause of action but lacks sufficient particulars, the court must then conduct a balancing exercise considering: the effective use of resources, proportionality, fairness to all parties, and the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.
Following the Panday Approach, the Court found that the lower courts' failure to consider whether the Applicant should be given an opportunity to amend his Statement of Claim, before striking it out, amounted to a misapplication of judicial discretion and an error of law.
The panel comprised the Honourable Justices Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan. Justice Jamadar delivered the judgment of the Court. Mr Ronald Burch-Smith represented the Appellant, while Mr Rajendra R. Jaigobin represented for the First Respondent and Mr Nirvan Singh for the Second Respondent.
?The full CCJ judgment is available on its website at www.ccj.org.
?
Disclaimer
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
Guyana News