Granger appeals decision in libel case in relation to presiding judge
Though finding that Justice Navindra Singh had “wrongfully” exercised his discretion to waive a pre-trial review (PTR) in the libel case which former President David Granger brought against several media houses, the Full Court last month ruled that it is that judge who is to conduct the trial, since it was he who had also conducted the case management conference (CMC).
Granger, is however, appealing this latter finding of the Full Court, strongly objecting to Justice Singh presiding over his trial because; as he argues, Justice Singh exercised powers of a pre-trial review judge.
In his motion seeking special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Granger is contending that the Full Court judges got it wrong and that that aspect of their decision is “bad in law.”
Back in April of last year, Granger, through his attorney Roysdale Forde SC, had written to Justice Singh voicing displeasure with him conducting a pre-trial review (PTR) and also presiding over the trial of his $2.6 billion libel suit.
It had been Granger’s contention that upon a proper construction of Part 38 (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the pre-trial judge is not to be the case management judge or the judge presiding over the trial.
Challenging the waiver, Forde had argued that in breach of the Rules, Justice Singh made two determinations without the consent of the parties: (1) that he will
be the PTR judge and (2) that he will also be the trial judge.
Justices Damone Younge and Gino Persaud who heard the appeal in the Full Court declared, however, that after examining the record of the proceedings and carefully considering the CPR as it relates to PTRs, the Court found that contrary to Granger’s contention, the hearing conducted by Justice Singh “was a continuation of the CMC and not a PTR.”
Citing Part 25:04 (4) of the CPR which falls under the provisions dealing with the CMC (Fixing and Variation of Timelines) at the first CMC and Part 25:03 – Case Management Conference; Forde had argued that Justice Singh at that first CMC made a determination that it was necessary that there be a PTR.
The lawyer had then submitted, that with the CMC having then ended, the PTR stage commenced; arguing that a proper construction of Part 38 (5) of the CPR, reveals the fundamental position that the pre-trial judge is not to be the case management judge or the presiding judge at the trial.
The Full Court judges had said in their ruling that having examined the directives which had been given to the parties by Justice Singh, the hearing which the Appellant contended to have been a PTR “was in actual fact a continuation of the CMC.”
Those directives the Court said, continued and followed the timetable which was set at the first CMC of the steps to be taken in the proceeding before the matter reaches the trial stage as required under Part 25 of the CPR.
“This Court is fortified in its view that the hearing conducted on the 28th April 2022 was a CMC and not a PTR as argued by the Appellant” the two judges declared.
They went on to say that in the first place, the objective of the PTR is “to encourage a settlement prior to trial, assist in identifying or narrowing the actual issues for