Amalgamated Realty and Rentals Ltd v Theresa Marxcius

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Judge: Pariagsingh, J
• Judgment Date: 24 July 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0724-3
• Docket Number: Claim Number: SLUHCV2025/0255

Between:

Amalgamated Realty and Rentals Limited

Claimant

and

Theresa Marxcius also known as Theresa Maxicus

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J0724-3

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice Alvin S. Pariagsingh

Claim Number: SLUHCV2025/0255

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DIVISION

Appearances:

Ms. Chaiser Thomas, a Director of the Claimant Company appearing for the Claimant.

REASONS

Pariagsingh, J

1 — Before the Court is an application for interim injunctive relief filed on 20 ^th June 2025. It is supported by the affidavit of Ms. Chaiser Thomas, a Director of the Company. The application was filed with a certificate of urgency. Upon it being docketed to this Court, the application was considered on paper and not deemed to be urgent. The Court in an order of 20 ^th June 2025 gave directions for the application to be served and be heard inter partes on 24 ^th July 2025 and that any opposition to the application be filed in accordance with the timelines set out in Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023 ( CPR)11.12.

2 The application was not served on the Defendant. From the evidence, the claim issued on the same day as the application for injunctive relief too was not served on the Defendant.

3 The claim was filed by a Director of the Claimant acting as a litigant in person. At the hearing, the Claimant was also represented by a Director and not a legal practitioner. At the hearing, the Court raised with the Director the Claimant's non-compliance with CPR 22.3 which provides that:

“22.3 (1) A body corporate must be represented by a legal practitioner in all proceedings before the court, unless the court permits it to be represented by a duly authorised director or other officer.

(2) Permission to represent the body corporate should, wherever practicable, be sought at a case management conference or pre-trial review.

(3) In considering whether to give permission the court must take into account all the circumstances including the complexity of the case.

(4) In paragraph (1) –

“duly authorised” means authorised by the body corporate to conduct the proceedings on its behalf.”

4 This rule is interpreted to mean a company cannot be a litigant in person unless the Court gives permission. To obtain permission, an application has to be made either at the case management conference or at the pre-trial review. There is no provision that specifically speaks to applications for injunctive relief. The rules seem to contemplate the application being made after the claim is filed.

5 In considering whether to grant permission, the Court must consider all the circumstances of the case including the complexity of the case. Additionally, the Court can only give permission for a duly authorised officer to represent the company. A duly authorised officer is defined as someone who is “authorised by the body corporate to conduct the proceedings on its behalf.” This, in my view, imposes an evidential burden on the officers of the company to provide evidence of the relevant authorisation of the person seeking to represent the company, or provide the Court with the relevant documents which form part of the company's constitution, which provide, if it so does, for the person seeking permission to represent the corporate body in litigation.

6 The instant claim is a claim for breach of contract and damages in the sum of $21,500.00. The Claimant contends that the Claimant secured a sale for the Defendant's property, acting as a real estate agent, and was thus entitled to a commission of 5% on the sale price of $430,000.00.

7 The application, in my view, is drafted in a manner sufficiently similar to the prescribed forms and contains the evidence which addresses the test for the grant of an interim injunction set out in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1, that it raises the Court's suspicion that it was drafted by a legal practitioner or at minimum a legal practitioner assisted in its drafting. The Court also notes that an address for service is given for the Claimant, litigant in person, of a...