Blackman v Humphrey's Bakery and Tavern Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Worrell, J.
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 3 of 1976
• Date: 27 February 1976

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Worrell, J.

No. 3 of 1976

Blackman

and

Humphrey's Bakery and Tavern Ltd.

Public Health - Health Services Act, Cap. 44 — Powers of entry and inspection of premises by health service officer — Extent of powers.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 These were two appeals against orders made by the learned magistrate sitting at District A. dismissing two informations, one of which charge Humphrey's Bakery and Tavern Limited with operating a bakery without a license, and the other of which charged Harold Humphrey for obstructing Doctor Francis Blackman in the execution of his duties under the Health Services Act.

2 An affidavit has been filed in which the Learned Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court states what evidence he has given before the learned magistrate in relation to the defendant company. It is clear that the record which the magistrate sent up was erroneous to the extent that he records the evidence of the deputy registrar as saying that “Humphrey's Bakery is the Limited Liability Company registered under the Companies Act” when in fact the Learned Deputy Registrar must have said “Humphrey's Bakery and Tavern Limited is a Limited Liability Company”.

3 As I look at these Regulations I conceive that the magistrate misunderstood the evidence before him, because it is well known to lawyers that a Limited Liability Company in Barbados must include in its name to be registered the word “Limited” and it is imperative for the word “Limited” to be included in the name of the defendant company. So therefore the magistrate must have erred.

4 Learned counsel for the defendant said that the proper way to get the evidence in was to put in the certificate of the Registration of the Company. I too share this view. The only reason why in this particular case this was not done was because at that stage of the proceedings there was no issue arising as to the name of the Defendant Company. The only issue was whether the defendant was a person known to the law, in this case whether it was a limited liability company.

5 The other information before the learned magistrate gave rise to a very important issue which the magistrate should have resolved, and quite simply it is this:

• (i) Whether the powers of entry contained in section 12 (i) of the Health Services Act, Chapter 44 were wide enough to cover the activities of Dr. Blackman on the morning of his visit.

• (ii) As a matter of fact...