1. Citation and Court
- Court: Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica, Civil Division
- Judge: Hon. K. Anderson, J.
- Date of Ruling: Delivered after hearings on March 11 and July 3, 2015
- Consolidated Claims:
- Victor Hyde v E. Phil & Sons A.S. Ltd. and the Attorney General (Claim No. 2008HCV 04410)
- Mitsy Stewart v E. Phil & Sons A.S. Ltd. and the Attorney General (Claim No. 2008HCV 05945)
2. Brief Facts
- Claimants: Victor Hyde (driver) and Mitsy Stewart (passenger) alleged personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident on May 18, 2007.
- Location: Albany Main Road, St. Mary, Jamaica.
- Allegation: The accident was caused by negligent roadworks conducted by the 1st defendant (E. Phil & Sons A.S. Ltd.), an independent contractor engaged by the National Works Agency (NWA), a government agency.
- Claim: Negligence against both the contractor and the Crown (represented by the Attorney General).
- Procedural Issue: The court considered whether to strike out the defence of the 2nd defendant (Attorney General) on its own motion, or enter judgment in favor of the claimants.
3. Legal Issues
- Can the court strike out a defence on its own motion under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)?
- What is the legal threshold for striking out a defence under CPR 26.3(1)(c)?
- Can summary judgment be entered against the Crown under CPR 15.3(b)?
- Does the Attorney General’s defence disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the claim?
4. Legal Principles Adopted
| Principle | Source / Authority | Application |
| Striking Out Standard | CPR 26.3(1)(c); Wenlock v Moloney; Three Rivers DC v Bank of England | A statement of case should be struck out only in plain and obvious cases where it discloses no reasonable ground for defending the claim. |
| Summary Judgment vs Striking Out | CPR 13.3 vs CPR 26.3; Gordon Stewart v John Issa | Summary judgment (realistic prospect of success) is distinct from striking out (reasonable grounds to defend). The latter is lower threshold and pre-trial. |
| No Summary Judgment Against Crown | CPR 15.3(b) | The court cannot enter summary judgment against the Crown. |
| Assumption of Truth on Striking Out | Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel | On a striking-out application, the court must assume the facts alleged by the respondent are true. |
| Mini-Trial Prohibition | Wenlock; Three Rivers | Striking out is not an occasion for a mini-trial or prolonged examination of evidence. |
5. Ratio Decidendi (Binding Principles)
- Striking out a defence under CPR 26.3(1)(c) is only permissible where the defence discloses no reasonable ground for defending the claim — not merely where it has no realistic prospect of success.
- The court cannot grant summary judgment against the Crown under CPR 15.3(b).
- The court may strike out a defence on its own motion, but must exercise this power sparingly and only in plain and obvious cases.
- A defence that raises issues fit to be tried — even if weak or unlikely to succeed — should not be struck out.
6. Obiter Dicta (Non-Binding Observations)
- The court noted deficiencies in the Attorney General’s defence but declined to elaborate, stating it was not prudent to do so at this stage.
- The court criticized counsel for both sides for conflating the standards for striking out and summary judgment.
- The court suggested that the non-delegable duty argument (i.e., Crown liability for inherently dangerous work by independent contractors) may have merit, but this was not determined and must await trial.
7. Orders Made
- The 2nd defendant’s defence shall not be struck out, in whole or in part.
- The consolidated claims shall proceed to a further case management conference.
- Costs of the striking-out application awarded to the 2nd defendant.
8. Key Takeaways
| Takeaway | Explanation |
| High bar for striking out | Even a weak defence may survive if it raises any question fit to be tried. |
| Crown immunity from summary judgment | Claimants cannot shortcut to judgment against the Crown — must go to full trial. |
| Court’s self-initiated powers are limited | The court can act on its own motion but will not do so aggressively in civil claims. |
| Non-delegable duty may be arguable | The Crown may still be liable for negligence of independent contractors in inherently dangerous work — but this is fact-sensitive and not preliminarily determinable. |
9. Practical Implications
- For Claimants: Ensure pleadings are robust and evidence-ready — no shortcut against the Crown.
- For Crown Counsel: Even a bare defence that puts claimants to proof may survive striking out.
- For Practitioners: Do not conflate striking out and summary judgment — distinct legal tests and outcomes.
10. Conclusion
This case is a textbook application of the striking-out threshold under Jamaica’s CPR. It reinforces that procedural justice favors trial on the merits, especially against the Crown, unless the defence is legally hopeless — not just factually weak.