Debby Samuel Looby v Sislyn Peters et Al

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Byer, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 August 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0820-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. ANUHCV2024/0333

Between:

[1] Debby Samuel Looby

Claimant

and

[1] Sislyn Peters

[2] Amberzine Joseph

[3] Stephanie Joseph

[4] Valarie Looby

[5] The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda

Defendants

[2025] ECSC J0820-1

CLAIM NO. ANUHCV2024/0333

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Ms. Debby Samuel Looby Claimant in person

Ms. Talia Da Costa for the First to Fourth Defendants

Ms. Joy Dublin and Ms. Desrie Markham for the Fifth Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SUBMISSIONS

Background

Byer, J.

1 As the litigation in this matter continues, the court was asked to determine three applications filed by the 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendants and the claimant.

2 Thus by notice of application filed on the 29 ^th May 2025, the 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendant sought an unless order for the non-payment of costs awarded against the claimant on the 18 ^th March 2025. Namely the sum of $750.00 on the dismissal by this court of an application for recusal by this court and the sum of $250.00 on a partial success on an application filed by the 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendant to strike out the claim as contained in the statement of claim. Both sums were ordered to be paid and up to the date of the filing of the application the claimant had made no payments on the said sums. The 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendants therefore sought an unless order pursuant to Part 26. 4 CPR 2023 for the amended statement of claim filed by the claimant to stand struck out if the claimant had not made payment of the two sums by a date to be determined by the court.

3 As was the right 1 of the 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendants, the application was made without notice and this court determined that since the claimant was an unrepresented litigant that the court should give the claimant an opportunity to be heard on the application and ordered service of the application.

4 When the application came on for hearing on the 24 ^th June 2025, the court case managed the matter and gave the claimant an opportunity to respond to the application and to make an application in relation to the affidavit filed by the claimant on the 12 ^th June 2025 in breach of the order of the court of the 18 ^th March 2025 when all witness statements or affidavits of witnesses were to be filed by the 2 ^nd June 2025.

5 In response the claimant filed three applications as follows:

i) Notice of application filed on the 2 ^nd July 2025 for a stay of execution of the costs payment made on the order for recusal (recusal sum)

ii) Notice of application filed on the 2 ^nd July 2025 for a stay of execution of the costs payment made on the strike out application (strike out sum)

iii) Notice of Application filed on the 11 ^th July 2025 for an extension of time for the filing of the supplemental affidavit filed on the 12 ^th June 2025 and for permission to file an affidavit in response to the 5 ^th defendant

6 For ease of reference, I will deal with the applications in the following manner, the stay applications and the unless order application and then the extension of time application.

Unless application/ Stay of execution applications

7 Since the stay applications deal with the sums sought to be paid under the unless application, I will deal with those first and then consider whether the court should make an unless order in all the circumstances.

8 By notices of application the claimant sought to stay the payment of the sums ordered to be paid and even though the claimant filed two separate applications, the grounds of both applications were by and large the same. The claimant in her applications cited the following as her basis for the stay application

a. that she was not a lawyer and that she was disadvantaged coming to the court and “relies on the goodwill instructions of officers of the court to allow procedure of the matter”

b. she was not aware that she could have applied for a stay of the order under Part 13 CPR

c. seeking the unless order puts the claimant at risk of being subject to an injustice.

d. that the court's actions paint the claimant as a perpetrator who causes wrong instead of an upholder of “right” against the adjudicator's apparent bias.

e. that the claimant is unemployed and needs the court's assistance in delaying any “unjust” payments to allow the fair resolution and conclusion of the matter

9 The claimant filed evidence in support of both applications and inter alia stated therein as the nub of the information in support of the stay of the recusal sum that she did not realize she had a right to seek the setting aside of the order pursuant to Part 13 CPR and that she has an intention to file an application for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal in relation to the recusal order “at the earliest opportunity”. In relation to the stay application on the strike out sum, the claimant by and large repeated her evidence in relation to the recusal sum but also stated that in relation to the strike out sum, a notice of appeal had been filed on the 23 ^rd April 2025 and that there was an intention to file an application for leave to appeal “shortly”. The claimant also averred that a stay should be granted against what she considered was judgment in default and that as such Part 13 CPR should apply and the order should be set aside.

10 The 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendants in reply to the application in their evidence in essence indicated that there having been no leave for appeal filed by the claimant, any notices of appeal (which they say they are aware of) are nullities and the time for seeking such leave having long expired, meant that the claimant had no reasonable prospect for success, one of the main bases for the court to consider granting a stay.

11 This position was further elaborated on by the 1 ^st to 4 ^th defendants in submissions and they relied on the authority of C—Mobile Services Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd 2 and the fundamental point that the applicant for a stay must show whether there is a risk to one or other or both parties if the court grants or refuses a stay and that this calls for an examination of the nature of the case which includes i) taking into account all the circumstances of the case ii) that a stay is the exception rather than the rule, iii) a party seeking a stay should provide cogent evidence that the appeal will be stifled or rendered nugatory, iv) in exercising its discretion that the balance of harm test must be undertaken and v) that the court should take into account the prospects of the appeal succeeding. 3

12 The claimant also made submissions on the notices of application for a stay having filed the same on the 8 ^th August 2025. In her submissions the claimant sought to argue the following:

Firstly, that having filed the applications for leave to appeal, those applications should be allowed to be heard and determined by the court of appeal as it is possible that the recusal sum and strike out sum would be overturned on appeal;

Secondly the stay was necessary to prevent her from suffering undue prejudice at the hands of the court and to limit the potential of suffering harm;

Thirdly, that she is presently unemployed and that she was seeking to minimize all harm that could occur if she is ordered to pay the sums, as there is a strong likelihood that the court of appeal would exercise its fiduciary duty and allow leave to appeal and that the apparent bias of the judge which calls for redress will not only be done but be seen to be done;

Fourthly, that the stay would prevent the defendants from gaining benefits to which they are not entitled and save her from having to sue to recover the costs when she is successful on appeal;

Fifthly, that damage would be caused to the court's reputation and image by failing to adhere to procedures to ensure the court's impartiality

Sixthly the defendants, in seeking to enforce the payment of costs are subverting the rules of both divine and natural justice and would have a nugatory effect leading

to the orders being executed before the appeal is heard, which would amount to an abuse of the court's process;

Seventhly and finally, that the defendant's constant filing of applications in opposition shows that they are acting as obstructionists and the fact that the court allows them to do so, allows them to unethically take advantage of the claimant as a pro se litigant before a biased court, allowing for the frustration of justice. Granting the stay will prevent the defendants from the enjoyment of their fruits resulting from biased and partial judicial decisions.

Court's considerations and analysis

13 In considering these applications, and particularly the...