Prince Sinckler v Editha Sinckler

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Mr Justice Saunders,Wit,Rajnauth-Lee,Barrow,Jamadar,Mr Justice Wit
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2020
• Court: Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
• Docket Number: CCJ Appeal No. BBCV2019/002
• Date: 16 July 2020

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Before

The Honourables Mr Justice A Saunders, PCCJ

Mr Justice J Wit, JCCJ

Mme Justice M Ranauth-Lee, JCCJ

Mr Justice D Barrow, JCCJ

Mr Justice P Jamadar, JCCJ

CCJ Appeal No. BBCV2019/002

BB Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2016

Between

Prince Sinckler

Appellant

and

Editha Sinckler

Respondent

Appearances

Mr Deighton K Rawlins for the Appellant

Mr Dennis M Headley with Mr Dave Cumberbatch for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION of The Honourable Mr Justice Saunders, President and the Honourable Justices Wit, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow and Jamadar

Delivered by The Honourable Mr Justice Wit on the 16th day of July 2020

Introduction

1 The Appellant Mr Sinckler and the Respondent Mrs Sinckler were married on 17 February 1983. On 6 February 2006, the marriage was dissolved by court order. Mrs Sinckler applied for maintenance and a maintenance order was made on 8 November 2007 ordering Mr Sinckler to pay Bds$ 950 per month to Mrs Sinckler with effect from 28 November 2007. Mr Sinckler appealed the order and on 14 December the Court of Appeal determined that the maintenance order should be treated as an interim order and sent the matter back to the High Court. On 6 June 2008, the (now interim) maintenance order was discharged. There was no further appeal at that point. However, Mr Sinckler did not pay any maintenance for the period the maintenance order was in effect, that is, from November 2007 to 6 June 2008. And so, Mrs Sinckler sought to enforce the interim maintenance order by filing an application, supported by affidavit, on 30 September 2008.

2 On 24 June 2010 this application came on for hearing in the High Court but neither Mr Sinckler nor his counsel was present. The Judge issued a summons with a warning to Mr Sinckler and directed that the documents filed on 30 September 2008 be refiled. On 15 November 2010 Mrs Sinckler filed a new application with supporting affidavit. There were now two applications for the same relief. So, when the matter came on again for hearing on 7 September 2011, Mrs Sinckler withdrew the older one. When the remaining application was eventually heard on 27 November 2012, the judge gave some interlocutory orders, which were appealed by Mr Sinckler. That appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The case went back to the High Court where it was ordered on 28 March 2014 “that unless the husband pays to the wife the sum of seven thousand six hundred dollars ($7,600.00) on or before Friday 27 ^th June 2014 he shall be committed to Her Majesty's Prison Dodds for a period of ten (10) days.”

3 Mr Sinckler, once more, appealed to the Court of Appeal. He challenged the Order of 28 March 2014 on two grounds, a procedural one and a substantive one, the latter being that the trial judge had wrongly refused to apply the “12 months' rule”, a rule of practice according to which a spousal maintenance order should not be enforced and arrears of maintenance should not be collected if the application for enforcement was filed more than twelve months after these arrears were due. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on three occasions in 2014 and on 10 February 2015. On 12 May 2016 it dismissed the appeal and ordered that each party shall bear his or her own costs.

4 By order of 18 January 2017, the Court of Appeal granted Mr Sinckler leave to appeal to this Court and ordered him to comply with certain conditions including providing security for costs. A Certificate of Compliance was issued but, inexplicably, more than two years later, on 3 April 2019 Mr Sinckler filed his Notice of Appeal, dated 10 May 2019, on 14 May 2019. The only ground of appeal was that the Court of Appeal was wrong because “the twelve (12) months' rule of practice, which obtains in Australia, as being the maximum period for the enforcement of maintenance orders...