Real Time Systems Limited v Renraw Investments Limited (2) CCAM and Company Limited (3) Austin Jack Warner

Under the Civil Proceedings Rules, the restriction in rule 35.3 concerns a party’s ability to request information and the timing of an application compelling a response. It does not restrict the court’s independent case-management powers. When faced with deficient pleadings and an application to strike out, the court retains discretion under rules 26.2 and 26.1(1)(w) to order further particulars or an amended statement of case within a specified period. It should consider proportionate alternatives and may attach an unless sanction. Before a case management conference, a party may change its statement of case under rule 20.1. Decisions to strike out should not rest on speculation unsupported by evidence.

Real Time claimed that sums paid to the appellants were loans. The appellants contended that the payments were gifts. Real Time’s claim form and statement of case gave few particulars, despite a pre-action request for details. Rampersad J held that the statement of case failed to comply with rule 8.6 and struck it out under rule 26.2, treating a request for information under Part 35 as premature. The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago reversed that decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, holding that the court could order particulars under rule 26.1(1)(w). The central issue before the Board was whether rule 35.3 prevented such a case-management order before witness statements had been served.

The Board dismissed the appeal and held that the Court of Appeal was clearly right. The matter was properly remitted for reconsideration of the appropriate order.

1. Interaction of the rules. Rule 35.3 restricts when a party may apply to compel a response to a request for information. It does not restrict the court’s own powers. It does not make deficient pleadings incapable of being remedied before exchange of witness statements.
2. Case-management discretion. Rule 26.2 gives the court a discretion whether to strike out. Read with rule 26.1(1)(w) and the overriding objective in rule 1.1, that discretion requires the court to consider alternatives. The court may order further details or an amended statement of case within a specified period, and may specify the consequences of non-compliance under rule 26.6.
3. Proportionate relief. The appellants could have sought an unless order under rule 26.3, requiring adequate details or an amended statement of case and providing for strike-out upon default. A defendant cannot force the court to adopt the more radical remedy merely by applying for strike-out. Rule 20.1 also permitted amendment before a case management conference without permission, including the addition of required details. The Board relied on Bernard v Seebalack [2010] UKPC 15, para 27, in this respect.
4. Application to the facts. The first-instance judge’s references to possible illegality, non-arm’s-length dealings and election timing were speculative and unsupported by evidence. Both sides’ accounts required explanation. Real Time’s offer to provide details could be tested through an unless order.

There was no cross-appeal seeking any order other than the remittal made by the Court of Appeal.

1. Privy Council: Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the strike-out and remit the matter for reconsideration was upheld.
2. Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago: Reversed the decision of Rampersad J and remitted the striking-out application for reconsideration of the appropriate order.
3. High Court: Rampersad J held that the statement of case failed to comply with rule 8.6 and struck it out under rule 26.2.