Thorne Riddell & Company Ltd v Tasker

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Douglas
• Judgment Date: 10 January 1979
• Neutral Citation: BB 1979 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 647 of 1977
• Date: 10 January 1979
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court

Douglas, C.J.

No. 647 of 1977

Thorne Riddell & Co. Ltd.

and

Tasker

Mr. W. H. A. Hanschell, Q.C., for the appellant.

Mr. P. D. H. Williams and Mr. M. FitzWilliam for the respondent.

Jurisdiction - High Court — Whether High Court had power to remit case to Severance Payments Tribunal for rehearing

Douglas, C.J.

1 This is an appeal against the decision of a tribunal established under the Severance Payments Act, Cap. 355 A, whereby the respondent was awarded the sum of six thousand dollars on the ground that she was dismissed because of redundancy after years' service.

2 The appellant is asking that the order of the tribunal be set aside and that it be afforded an opportunity of being heard before the tribunal on the merits of the case.

3 It appears from the reasons given by the chairman of the tribunal that on the 28 ^th of January, 1977 the secretary of the tribunal sent to the respondent company by registered post at its registered office at Cockspur House, Niles Street, Bridgetown, the following documents –

• (i) A copy of the originating application:

• (ii) Notice of the claim requesting that the respondent enter an appearance within 14 days; and

• (iii) A notice of appearance for the use by the respondent.

4 No appearance was entered by the respondent. There is exhibited with the evidence and other papers concerning the case photo static copies of a registration receipt for a letter addressed to the Manager, Thorne Riddell & Co., Cockspur House, Nile Street, and a further receipt purporting to show that the letter was received by somebody on behalf of the appellant.

5 On the 5 ^th of August, 1977 the tribunal sat and heard the application ex parte. The tribunal found that the respondent was continuously employed for the requisite period immediately preceding the termination of her employment at an average rate of $187.50 per week and was dismissed because of redundancy.

6 On the 8 ^th August, 1977 the secretary to the tribunal forwarded to the appellant a copy of this decision in accordance with rule 9 (3) of the Rules of Procedure contained in the Schedule to the Severance Payments (Tribunal) Regulations, 1974.

7 On the 10 ^th of October, 1977 Mr. Hanschell, attorney for the appellants, wrote to the secretary of the severance payments tribunal, stating inter alia –

“4. With regard to case No. 10/77 (Mrs. Tasker), I understand this case proceeded to judgment unilaterally in default of any participation by defendant, who never had actual notice thereof and was thus precluded from taking any part. A formal appeal has been filed and is pending under sec. 39 of the S/P Act, 71, but I am submitting herewith an alternative application on the tribunal (chairman) for a review and rehearing ex debito justitiae in accordance with rules 3 (3) 12 (2) and 11 (2) and (3) of the aforesaid Rules of Procedure, and would appreciate it if you would fix an early date for hearing thereof after consultation by phone and after sending a copy thereof to respondent's attorney at law (Mr. P. Williams).”

8 Counsel enclosed a notice of motion seeking an order that the default judgment be set aside and that the appellant be granted an extension of time within which to enter an appearance. This notice was supported by affidavit.

9 The secretary of the tribunal replied on the 26 ^th of October 1977 stating that the case could not be reheard normally as a formal appeal had been filed and was pending. He added that the tribunal had finished all cases assigned to it.

10 There was further correspondence ending with Mr. Hanschell's letter of the 5 ^th of December, 1977 but the matter remained as it was – i.e. the chairman of the tribunal took the position that the tribunal was not competent to hear any cases already disposed of.

11 In his reasons for decision which are undated, the chairman took the position on that the tribunal was not competent to hear any cases already disposed of.

12 In his reasons for decision which are undated, the chairman of the tribunal deals fully with the question of notice. He cites the provisions of paragraph 13 (1) of the Schedule ( Rules of Procedure) to the regulations which provides –

“Any notice given under these rules shall be in writing and all notices and documents required or...