Dale Amory et al v. Ernest Amory et al. (Claim No. SKBHCV2021/0106 formerly Claim No. SKBHCV2019/0146) and Specific Disclosure

The recent decision of Lady Justice Tamara Gill delivered on the 9th of June 2023 in the matter of Dale Amory et al v. Ernest Amory et al. (Claim No. SKBHCV2021/0106 formerly Claim No. SKBHCV2019/0146) in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, St. Christopher Circuit, involved the determination of an application for specific disclosure by the Claimants of classes of documents.

In determining this application, Lady Justice Gill at paragraph 15 of the judgment, relied on the case of Dr. The Honourable Timothy Harris v. Dr. The Right Honourable Denzil Douglas SKBHCVAP2019/0026, where Baptiste JA stated that:-

“… The court has discretion as to whether to make an order for specific disclosure and will need to be satisfied that the documents are directly relevant within the parameters of the rule. However, the test for relevance is not a matter for the exercise of discretion. What documents parties are entitled to is a matter of law, not discretion.”

Lady Justice Gill made it clear that:

“In this application, it is crucial that the claimants demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court how the disclosure requested would aid their case. They must show the direct relevance of the classes of documents they want disclosed…

In determining whether the classes of documents are directly relevant, the court must examine the pleadings.”

Lady Justice Gill in applying the aforementioned principles dismissed the Claimants’ application for specific disclosure on the basis that the classes of documents sought were not directly relevant to the matters in issue.

It is abundantly clear from this decision that an order for specific disclosure is not to facilitate fishing expeditions or fishing marathons of any sort. The Court must be satisfied that the documents or classes of documents being sought are directly relevant to the pleadings. Furthermore, this decision emphasized that the test for direct relevance is a matter of law and not discretion.

Daniel Brantley successfully acted for the Defendants in this matter.